For a couple of days, MacOS X binaries are not build on CRAN (for my
recently uploaded packages only?):
The R.oo package is listed as MacOS X binary: not available, see
check log?, but the 'check log' show no errors
URL: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/R.oo/
Is this a known issue?
On Apr 15, 2010, at 2:26 AM, Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
For a couple of days, MacOS X binaries are not build on CRAN (for my
recently uploaded packages only?):
AFAICS your package was posted on Apr 13 so at the earliest it can be built in
the Apr 14 run = yesterday. There was no Apr 14 run
Hello there,
I define a accessor method for one of my classes, i.e.
setMethod(f = [,
signature = NG_data,
definition = function(x,i,j,drop){
if(all(is.na(match(j,x...@shortnames)) == FALSE)){
return(x[,match(j,x...@shortnames)]) }else{
I am developping a package (pgirmess) that since long does not go
through CRAN MacOSX checks, just because I have this command in one of
the examples.
text(mydata[,3],mydata[,4],paste(round(dirs,0),°),cex=0.7)
It makes:
ERROR: re-encoding failure from encoding 'latin1'
The subject line is untrue.
We recommend in 'Writing R Extensions' that you encode such characters
as \u sequences, in this case \u00b0. However, this is more
likely to be a locale problem on the check server, as pgirmess checks
out on my Mac. In fact, the top of the log is
# using R
Prof Brian Ripley a écrit :
The subject line is untrue.
We recommend in 'Writing R Extensions' that you encode such characters
as \u sequences, in this case \u00b0. However, this is more
likely to be a locale problem on the check server, as pgirmess checks
out on my Mac. In fact, the
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, William Dunlap wrote:
-Original Message-
From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org
[mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Henrik Bengtsson
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 8:24 AM
To: Duncan Murdoch
Cc: r-devel; Michael Dewey
Subject: Re: [Rd] R CMD check tells
Speaking as a copious generator of CMD CHECK notes: I don't see that there's a
problem to be solved here-- i.e. I don't see why it's worth changing good code
or adding conventions just to circumvent CMD CHECK notes. (If the code is bad,
of course it should be changed!) As the original poster
