[R-pkg-devel] Unclear NOTE for r-devel-linux-x86_64-debian-clang

2023-11-02 Thread Tony Wilkes
Hi everyone, I updated my package, but found a NOTE for r-devel-linux-x86_64-debian-clang. See https://www.r-project.org/nosvn/R.check/r-devel-linux-x86_64-debian-clang/tinycodet-00check.html. The NOTE is: checking HTML version of manual ... [3s/5s] NOTE Found the following HTML validation probl

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Unclear NOTE for r-devel-linux-x86_64-debian-clang

2023-11-02 Thread Duncan Murdoch
On 02/11/2023 3:58 a.m., Tony Wilkes wrote: Hi everyone, I updated my package, but found a NOTE for r-devel-linux-x86_64-debian-clang. See https://www.r-project.org/nosvn/R.check/r-devel-linux-x86_64-debian-clang/tinycodet-00check.html. The NOTE is: checking HTML version of manual ... [3s/5s]

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Unclear NOTE for r-devel-linux-x86_64-debian-clang

2023-11-02 Thread Ivan Krylov
On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 07:58:12 + Tony Wilkes wrote: > pkgs.html:66:9 (pkgs.Rd:24): Warning: anchor "pkgs" already > defined Looks like the same problem as here: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-package-devel/2023q4/009790.html Should have been fixed in SVN r85440. Unfortunately, the check mac

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Issue with R Package on CRAN - OpenMP and clang17

2023-11-02 Thread Romain Pierlot
I really appreciate your assistance, and the time you dedicated to building LLVM ! I noticed that you've posted the issue on GitHub, thanks for this too, I'll stay updated and regularly check the answers. Does a compiler bug imply that the issue doesn't come from from the code? Once again, t

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Issue with R Package on CRAN - OpenMP and clang17

2023-11-02 Thread Ivan Krylov
В Thu, 2 Nov 2023 10:38:56 +0100 (CET) Romain Pierlot пишет: > Does a compiler bug imply that the issue doesn't come from from the > code? Yes. I'm sure (corrections welcome!) that it's not an error to use a Fortran variable before an OpenMP parallel block that also uses it for a reduction opera

Re: [R-pkg-devel] RFC: an interface to manage use of parallelism in packages

2023-11-02 Thread Ivan Krylov
В Wed, 25 Oct 2023 13:54:53 -0700 "Reed A. Cartwright" пишет: > For a comparison, I'd recommend looking at how GNU make does parallel > processing. It uses the concept of job server and job slots. What I > like about it is that it is implemented at the OS level because make > needs to support int

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Matrix and Mac OS

2023-11-02 Thread Mikael Jagan
On 2023-11-01 12:59 pm, Mikael Jagan wrote: A hack that seems to work is (whitespace added for readability): \newcommand{\Seqn}{ \ifelse{latex}{ \Sexpr[results=rd]{if (getRversion() < "4.2.2") "eqn{#1}" else "eqn{#2}"} }{ \ifelse{html

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Package bioOED has been removed from CRAN just for personal reasons

2023-11-02 Thread David Hugh-Jones
Aside from the package question, surely the other issue here is that Prof Ripley’s email is extraordinarily rude. Any paid employee would be sacked for that. I appreciate R and CRAN are volunteer-run organisations, but I don’t think that should be an excuse for this level of, frankly, toxicity. Why

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Matrix and Mac OS

2023-11-02 Thread Mikael Jagan
A hack that seems to work is (whitespace added for readability): \newcommand{\Seqn}{ \ifelse{latex}{ \Sexpr[results=rd]{if (getRversion() < "4.2.2") "eqn{#1}" else "eqn{#2}"} }{ \ifelse{html}{ \Sexpr[results=rd]{if (getRversion() < "4.

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Package bioOED has been removed from CRAN just for personal reasons

2023-11-02 Thread Rolf Turner
On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 16:10:34 + David Hugh-Jones wrote: > Aside from the package question, surely the other issue here is that > Prof Ripley’s email is extraordinarily rude. Any paid employee would > be sacked for that. I appreciate R and CRAN are volunteer-run > organisations, but I don’t th

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Package bioOED has been removed from CRAN just for personal reasons

2023-11-02 Thread Spencer Graves
On 11/2/23 2:52 PM, Rolf Turner wrote: On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 16:10:34 + David Hugh-Jones wrote: Aside from the package question, surely the other issue here is that Prof Ripley’s email is extraordinarily rude. Any paid employee would be sacked for that. I appreciate R and CRAN are volunte