On 10/28/2013 06:00 AM, r-devel-requ...@r-project.org wrote:
On 13-10-26 9:49 PM, Simon Urbanek wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Yihui Xie wrote:
>
>> This has been asked soooo many times that I think it may be a good
>> idea for R CMD check to just stop when the user passes a directory
>> instead of a tar ball to it, or automatically run R CMD build before
>> moving on. In my opinion, sometimes an FAQ and a bug are not entirely
>> different.
>>
>
> +1 -- and I'd do the same for R CMD INSTALL. If someone insists, there could
be --force or something like that for those that really want to work on
directories despite all the issues with that, but IMHO the default should be for
both INSTALL and check to bail out if not presented with a file -- it would save a
lot of people a lot of time spent in chasing ghost issues.
That seems like a reasonable suggestion. I wouldn't want to lose the
ability to install or check a directory; for development of packages
like rgl which have a lot of compiled code, installing from a tarball
takes a lot longer than installing when all of the code has already been
compiled.
I use R CMD check on directories often. The survival and coxme pacakges have large test
suites, and before things are packaged up for R forge there are may be multiple iterations
to get past all of them. (Add one new idea, break something old). Creating the tarball
is slow due to vignettes.
Thus I would hate to see it outlawed. Of course I know enough to ignore many of the
warnings during this testing stage, I do use the tarball for my final run, and I
understand the noise level that this option incurs on R-devel.
Terry T.
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
