On 4 October 2005 at 08:23, Matt Kraai wrote: | On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 06:17:27AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > | > On 3 October 2005 at 21:59, Matt Kraai wrote: | > | > | > I disabled a few of these tests on other packages formerly provided by | > | > | > r-recommended, and I guess I need to disable it here too. | > | > | | > | > | This was on i386. | > | > | > | > Odd, so how does that square with my pbuilder logs showing that it built just | > | > fine? | > | | > | I don't know. I'll make sure that I can reproduce the problem | > | tomorrow and, if I can, send you the list of packages that were used | > | in the build environment. | > | > After sending the mail I realized that it may just be the difference between | > the previous R [ my logs show I used R 2.1.1 ] whereas you will have gotten a | > R 2.2.0.beta.* for the R 2.2.0 release due this week. If I get a chance I'll | > try boot as well here. | | I was able to reproduce the failure. It used version | 2.2.0.beta.20050929-1 of both r-base-core and r-base-dev.
Thanks for doing that. I wonder, though, how it then survives the three tests (against R stable, patched and devel -- roughly equivalent to our stable, testing and unstable) on the CRAN tests, but looking at lines 167 and 168 in http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/checkSummary.html reveals that CRAN uses boot 1.2.23 against R-devel and 1.2.22 against R-released (aka 2.1.1) and R-patched (I presume that's the release candidate). So it looks like I am guilty by having inserted boot 1.2.23 "too soon". Oh well. Dirk -- Statistics: The (futile) attempt to offer certainty about uncertainty. -- Roger Koenker, 'Dictionary of Received Ideas of Statistics' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]