Thanks, just to drive this a bit further:
What if the headers then start producing some ugly compile warnings? Do
I have to fix these, too?
On 1/16/20 5:12 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 16 January 2020 at 17:06, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
| On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:58, Guido Kraemer <gkrae...@bgc-jena.mpg.de> wrote:
| >
| > I need to distribute some 3rd party headers with my package. The headers
| > make R CMD check produce warnings:
| >
| > File which contains pragma(s) suppressing important diagnostics:
| > ...
| > Files which contain pragma(s) suppressing diagnostics:
| > ...
| >
| > There are some additional NOTEs on the use of `std::cout` which is being
| > used in some of the headers.
| >
| > If I want to submit the package to CRAN in the future, do I have to edit
| > the headers?
|
| I think so. That's what, e.g., Dirk does for BH:
|
https://github.com/eddelbuettel/bh/commit/313da3cb04227d96daafa2d73668b30fa3fd10fc
=:-)
Beat me to it. Was about to show the last diff:
https://github.com/eddelbuettel/bh/blob/master/local/patches/bh_1.72.0-0.diagnostics.patch
The policy is, if I may use salty language for once, idiotic^Ha really bad
call. But I don't get to make the policy so I just live by it.
So yes Guido, you have to. And again on each upstream upgrade you cover.
Dirk
--
Guido Kraemer
Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry Jena
Department for Biogeochemical Integration
Hans-Knöll-Str. 10
07745 Jena
Germany
phone: +49 3641 576293
e-mail: gkrae...@bgc-jena.mpg.de
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
