-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Gentleman wrote:
>
> ...
> As for the difference between source packages and built packages, yes
> it would be nice at some time to enter into a discussion on that topic.
> There are lots of things that can be done at build time (
Kurt Hornik wrote:
>>Simon Urbanek writes:
>
>
>>On Apr 20, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Henrik Bengtsson (max 7Mb) wrote:
>>
>>>Is it a general consensus on R-devel that *.tar.gz distributions
>>>should only be treated as a distribution for *building* packages
>>>and not for developing them?
>
>
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, Kurt Hornik wrote:
>> Simon Urbanek writes:
>
>> On Apr 20, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Henrik Bengtsson (max 7Mb) wrote:
>>> Is it a general consensus on R-devel that *.tar.gz distributions
>>> should only be treated as a distribution for *building* packages
>>> and not for develop
> Simon Urbanek writes:
> On Apr 20, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Henrik Bengtsson (max 7Mb) wrote:
>> Is it a general consensus on R-devel that *.tar.gz distributions
>> should only be treated as a distribution for *building* packages
>> and not for developing them?
[Actually, distributing so that
On Apr 20, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Henrik Bengtsson (max 7Mb) wrote:
> Is it a general consensus on R-devel that *.tar.gz distributions
> should only be treated as a distribution for *building* packages
> and not for developing them?
I don't know whether this is a general consensus, but it definit
One thing which I personally disagree with is that the procedure for
the check is different when run on a directory than on a tarball (I
am talking about the defaults here, I now know I can change it
locally). I could understand the difference if the check resulted in
an _error_ such that I
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Robert Gentleman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Well, I guess if someone thinks they know how I am going to configure and
> build the sources needed to construct appropriate dynamic libraries so well
> that they can feel free to exclude files at their whim at install time,
> perhaps they
Hi,
Well, I guess if someone thinks they know how I am going to configure
and build the sources needed to construct appropriate dynamic libraries
so well that they can feel free to exclude files at their whim at
install time, perhaps they could feel just as free to exclude them at
build time
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Robert Gentleman wrote:
> I disagree, things like README files and other objects are important and
> should be included. I don't see the real advantage to such warnings, if
> someone wants them they could be turned on optionally.
Isn't the point at least partly that all tho
I disagree, things like README files and other objects are important and
should be included. I don't see the real advantage to such warnings, if
someone wants them they could be turned on optionally.
If size is an issue then authors should be warned that their package is
large (in the top 1% at
On 4/19/06, Prof Brian Ripley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, James Bullard wrote:
>
> > Hello, I am having an issue with R CMD check with the nightly build of
> > RC 2.3.0 (listed in the subject.)
>
> This is all explained in TFM, `Writing R Extensions'.
>
> > The problem is this
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, James Bullard wrote:
> Hello, I am having an issue with R CMD check with the nightly build of
> RC 2.3.0 (listed in the subject.)
This is all explained in TFM, `Writing R Extensions'.
> The problem is this warning:
>
> * checking if this is a source package ... WARNING
> Sub
Hello, I am having an issue with R CMD check with the nightly build of
RC 2.3.0 (listed in the subject.)
The problem is this warning:
* checking if this is a source package ... WARNING
Subdirectory 'src' contains:
README _Makefile
These are unlikely file names for src files.
In fact, they ar
13 matches
Mail list logo
