Duncan Murdoch <murdoch <at> stats.uwo.ca> writes: > > On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 00:39:17 +0000 (UTC), Gabor Grothendieck > <ggrothendieck <at> myway.com> wrote: > > >: Even with this change, Rcmd check is still going to install the files > >: it's supposed to ignore, because it uses Rcmd INSTALL, and there's no > >: .Rbuildignore support there. > >: > > > >If the behaviour is suddenly changed then this is going to cause work > >for people whose scripts depend on the current behavior. > > Yes, that's normal. If you work around a bug and the bug gets fixed, > then you will need to change your code. That's why the NEWS file > reports bug fixes and other changes. > > > In order to > >minimize disruption I would ask that such change only be made at the > >same time that a flag for turning on and off .Rbuildignore processing > >is implemented on build, check, install and build --binary. > > There's a simple workaround to turn .Rbuildignore processing off: just > rename the file. Adding a switch is *not* a prerequisite for the > other changes. > > >Even > >with such a flag it may require revision to scripts but at least > >any change with the flag will be minimal. Even better, it may > >mean some scripts can be eliminated. > > There are 3 changes that I would contemplate: > > 1. Fix the bug that means "R CMD check" looks in the wrong place for > .Rbuildignore. > > 2. Make "R CMD build --binary" consistent with "R CMD build" in its > handling of .Rbuildignore. > > 3. Make "R CMD install" and "R CMD check" consistent with "R CMD > build" in their handling of .Rbuildignore. > > Number 1 should definitely be fixed in the patches to 2.0.1. I have a > feeling that both 2 and 3 should be done (and 2 would be an automatic > consequence of 3 unless we took action to stop it), but I'd put them > in 2.1.0, not 2.0.x. > > Martin and you have also suggested > > 4. Add another flag to Rcmd build (and install and check?), to turn > .Rbuildignore processing on and off, for increased flexiblity or for > backward compatiblity. > > My own feeling is that this doesn't increase flexibility enough, and > I'd like a better solution, but we've got lots of time before 2.1.0 is > released to discuss this.
I did not know it was a bug and even you did not realize it until you looked at the code. I do have one suggestion that might be trivial for you yet be beneficial for everyone else, as an interim step, until a better solution comes about. After fixing the scripts, could you leave the old scripts in bin with new names, e.g. oldbuild, oldcheck, etc. so that one can issue the command: R CMD oldbuild ... and get the old behavior. That provides a simple way to get either behavior while waiting for the ultimate solution and does not interfere with the new scripts in any way. ______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
