: Steven Scott
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 12:11 PM
To: Vladimir Dergachev
Cc: McGrath, Justin M; r-package-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Wrong mailing list: Could the 100 byte path length
limit be lifted?
Compiled code is another source of long names. Some libraries
split of 100 character total path vs 160 characters for just a directory path.
From: Steven Scott
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 12:11 PM
To: Vladimir Dergachev
Cc: McGrath, Justin M; r-package-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Wrong ma
Compiled code is another source of long names. Some libraries are produced
by companies with style restrictions that demand LongDescriptiveNames for
functions and classes, and which expect file names to match the name of the
class contained within. If you've got
Models/SpecificModelFamily/Posteri
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023, McGrath, Justin M wrote:
On Windows, packages will be in "C:\Users\[User Name]\Documents\R\win-library\[R
version]\[Package Name]".
With a 150 byte limit, that leaves 70 bytes for the user name, R version
and package name. That seems more than sufficient. If people are
> To: Tomas Kalibera
> Cc: Dirk Eddelbuettel; McGrath, Justin M; Ben Bolker; Martin Maechler;
> r-package-devel@r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Wrong mailing list: Could the 100 byte path length
> limit be lifted?
>
>
> On 13 December 2023 at 16:02, Tomas Kalibera
rtin Maechler;
>r-package-devel@r-project.org
>Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Wrong mailing list: Could the 100 byte path length
>limit be lifted?
>
>
>On 13 December 2023 at 15:32, Tomas Kalibera wrote:
>| Please don't forget about what has been correctly mentioned on this
roject.org
Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Wrong mailing list: Could the 100 byte path length
limit be lifted?
On 13 December 2023 at 16:02, Tomas Kalibera wrote:
|
| On 12/13/23 15:59, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > On 13 December 2023 at 15:32, Tomas Kalibera wrote:
| > | Please don't forge
compatible tar.
From: Dirk Eddelbuettel
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 8:59 AM
To: Tomas Kalibera
Cc: McGrath, Justin M; Ben Bolker; Martin Maechler;
r-package-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Wrong mailing list: Could the 100 byte path length
limit be lifted?
On 13 Decembe
Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Wrong mailing list: Could the 100 byte path length
limit be lifted?
On 12/13/23 14:56, McGrath, Justin M wrote:
>> Thanks. Pursuing this a bit further, from ?tar "Known problems":
> > The handling of file paths of more than 100 bytes. These
>
On 13 December 2023 at 16:02, Tomas Kalibera wrote:
|
| On 12/13/23 15:59, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > On 13 December 2023 at 15:32, Tomas Kalibera wrote:
| > | Please don't forget about what has been correctly mentioned on this
| > | thread already: there is essentially a 260 character limit o
On 12/13/23 15:59, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 13 December 2023 at 15:32, Tomas Kalibera wrote:
| Please don't forget about what has been correctly mentioned on this
| thread already: there is essentially a 260 character limit on Windows
| (see
| https://blog.r-project.org/2023/03/07/path-lengt
On 13 December 2023 at 15:32, Tomas Kalibera wrote:
| Please don't forget about what has been correctly mentioned on this
| thread already: there is essentially a 260 character limit on Windows
| (see
| https://blog.r-project.org/2023/03/07/path-length-limit-on-windows/index.html
| for more).
On 12/13/23 14:56, McGrath, Justin M wrote:
Thanks. Pursuing this a bit further, from ?tar "Known problems":
> The handling of file paths of more than 100 bytes. These
> were unsupported in early versions of ‘tar’, and supported in
> one way by POSIX ‘tar’ and in another by GNU ‘
check reports a NOTE?
Best wishes,
Justin
From: Martin Maechler
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 2:22 AM
To: Ben Bolker; McGrath, Justin M
Cc: Simon Urbanek; Duncan Murdoch
Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Wrong mailing list: Could the 100 byte path length
limit be lifted?
>&g
Thanks. Pursuing this a bit further, from ?tar "Known problems":
The handling of file paths of more than 100 bytes. These
were unsupported in early versions of ‘tar’, and supported in
one way by POSIX ‘tar’ and in another by GNU ‘tar’ and yet
another by the POSIX ‘pax’ command which recent ‘t
I don't know what the warning looks like, but the ?tar help page
discusses the issues.
Duncan Murdoch
On 12/12/2023 3:10 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote:
FWIW the R-windows FAQ says:
Yet another complication is a 260 character limit on the length of the
entire path name imposed by Windows. The limi
FWIW the R-windows FAQ says:
Yet another complication is a 260 character limit on the length of the
entire path name imposed by Windows. The limit applies only to some
system functions, and hence it is possible to create a long path using
one application yet inaccessible to another. It is som
Justin,
now that you clarified what you are actually talking about, this is a question
about the CRAN policies, so you should really direct it to the CRAN team as it
is their decision (R-devel would be appropriate if this was a limitation in R
itself, and R-package-devel would be appropriate if
When submitting a package to CRAN, it is required that path names be shorter
than 100 bytes, with the reason that paths longer than that cannot be made into
portable tar files. This error is reported by `R CMD check --as-cran`. Since
this pertains only to developing packages, this seemed like th
> McGrath, Justin M
> on Tue, 12 Dec 2023 15:03:28 + writes:
> We include other software in our source code. It has some long paths so a
few of the files end up with paths longer than 100 bytes, and we need to
manually rename them whenever we pull in updates.
> The 100 b
20 matches
Mail list logo
