On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 22 February 2011 at 11:26, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
| On 2/22/11 11:13 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel e...@debian.org wrote:
| Just a quick note to say that ...
|
| On 22 February 2011 at 10:53,
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 22 February 2011 at 13:49, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
| On 2/22/11 11:45 AM, Simon Urbanek simon.urba...@r-project.org wrote:
|
|
|
| On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
|
| Simon: Are
On 22 February 2011 at 15:32, Simon Urbanek wrote:
|
| On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
|
| On 22 February 2011 at 13:49, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
| | On 2/22/11 11:45 AM, Simon Urbanek simon.urba...@r-project.org wrote:
| |
| |
| |
| | On Feb 22,
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 22 February 2011 at 15:32, Simon Urbanek wrote:
|
| On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
|
| On 22 February 2011 at 13:49, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
| | On 2/22/11 11:45 AM, Simon Urbanek
On 22 February 2011 at 16:53, Simon Urbanek wrote:
| i386 = 32-bit (not that is matters) and the CRAN specs are listed in CRAN
Package Check Flavors saying OS X 10.5.8, gcc 4.2.1 (5577 to be precise).
| I can only speculate why they are not affected, and I'd say it's because they
use 10.6 and
Hi,
Out of curiosity I also ran a R CMD check on the CRAN version of Rcpp,
and it failed on my machine (10.5):
Running the tests in ‘tests/doRUnit.R’ failed.
Error in eval.with.vis(expr, envir, enclos) :
unit test problems: 0 failures, 1 errors
Error in func() : object 'stdVector' not
On 2/22/11 4:14 PM, baptiste auguie baptiste.aug...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Hi,
Out of curiosity I also ran a R CMD check on the CRAN version of Rcpp,
and it failed on my machine (10.5):
Looks like the big difference might be 10.5 vs. 10.6. My compiler is the
same as Simon's build machine.
On 2/22/11 4:25 PM, Simon Urbanek simon.urba...@r-project.org wrote:
On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Anyway---I will point our OS X user to source installs.
Well, I don't think that helps in any way - the test will still fail for
all 10.5 users. Why don't you just
On 22 February 2011 at 17:25, Simon Urbanek wrote:
| On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
|
| On 22 February 2011 at 16:53, Simon Urbanek wrote:
| | i386 = 32-bit (not that is matters) and the CRAN specs are listed in
CRAN Package Check Flavors saying OS X 10.5.8, gcc
On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:29 PM, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com
ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
On 2/22/11 4:25 PM, Simon Urbanek simon.urba...@r-project.org wrote:
On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Anyway---I will point our OS X user to source installs.
On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 22 February 2011 at 17:25, Simon Urbanek wrote:
| On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
|
| On 22 February 2011 at 16:53, Simon Urbanek wrote:
| | i386 = 32-bit (not that is matters) and the CRAN specs are
On 2/22/11 4:33 PM, Simon Urbanek simon.urba...@r-project.org wrote:
On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:29 PM, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com
ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
On 2/22/11 4:25 PM, Simon Urbanek simon.urba...@r-project.org wrote:
On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Dirk
On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Simon Urbanek wrote:
On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:51 PM, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com
ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
On 2/22/11 4:33 PM, Simon Urbanek simon.urba...@r-project.org wrote:
On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:29 PM, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com
On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:46 PM, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com
ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
On 2/22/11 4:32 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel e...@debian.org wrote:
What boolean test for 'am I on OS X 10.5' can you suggest?
You could use system(uname -r), which on my system gives 10.6.0 (even
Ken,
Could you test the 0.9.1 tarball? Then in
inst/unitTests/runit.Module.client.package.R, apply the diff below:
-- ie add the new .badOSX function (maybe I'll rename it 'oldOSX')
-- change the test to add a! .badOSX()
so that the test that barfs under g++ 4.2.1 is not getting
On 23 February 2011 00:28, Dirk Eddelbuettel e...@debian.org wrote:
+if( Rcpp:::capabilities()[[Rcpp modules]] ! .basOSX() ) {
You probably meant,
+if( Rcpp:::capabilities()[[Rcpp modules]] ! .badOSX() ) {
(check in progress...)
baptiste
___
On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Ken,
Could you test the 0.9.1 tarball? Then in
inst/unitTests/runit.Module.client.package.R, apply the diff below:
-- ie add the new .badOSX function (maybe I'll rename it 'oldOSX')
You have a typo in the call (.basOSX vs
R CMD check now successfully completes on my machine with
.badOSX - !( Sys.info()['sysname'] == Darwin
isTRUE(as.integer(gsub(\\..*,,Sys.info()['release'])) 10L) )
if( Rcpp:::capabilities()[[Rcpp modules]] .badOSX ) {
Cheers,
baptiste
On 23 February 2011 00:56, Simon Urbanek
Oops, just realised the silliness of my having renamed .badOSX a good
one. Oh well, never mind that, I guess it's a matter of opinion ;)
baptiste
On 23 February 2011 01:08, baptiste auguie
baptiste.aug...@googlemail.com wrote:
R CMD check now successfully completes on my machine with
.badOSX
On 22 February 2011 at 18:56, Simon Urbanek wrote:
|
| On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
|
| Ken,
|
| Could you test the 0.9.1 tarball? Then in
| inst/unitTests/runit.Module.client.package.R, apply the diff below:
|
| -- ie add the new .badOSX function (maybe
On Feb 22, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 22 February 2011 at 18:56, Simon Urbanek wrote:
|
| On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
|
| Ken,
|
| Could you test the 0.9.1 tarball? Then in
| inst/unitTests/runit.Module.client.package.R, apply
On 22 February 2011 at 19:42, Simon Urbanek wrote:
| Based on the extensive discussion here it appears that
|
| 10.5.0 fails as evidenced by your setup and confirmation by other
|
| 10.6.0 passes
|
| so I want a test that screams if I 10.5 or lower. I don't care about major
| 8, 9,
22 matches
Mail list logo
