Thanks Gabor and Duncan,
> It's actually in ff/man/clone.rd, not clone.ff.rd. There is no
> ff/man/clone.ff.rd file.
but there *is* clone.ff.rd in the >= 4.0.0 versions of the packages
bit/bit64/ff.
Hence the check warning is a false alarm resulting from checking bit 4.0.2
(GitHub.com/truecluster) against ff 2.2-14.2 (CRAN) instead of checking it
against the also submitted ff 4.0.2 (GitHub.com/truecluster).
So all I can and will do is waiting that CRAN maintainers install and check
again.
Best
Jens
>
> Duncan Murdoch
>
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Jens
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 16.06.20 22:31, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
> >> This is how to look up the filename. The first "sp" is the topic name,
> >> the second is the package name.
> >>
> >>> help("sp", "sp")[[1]]
> >> [1] "C:/Users/csard/R/win-library/4.0/sp/help/00sp"
> >>
> >> So you need to link to the "00sp.Rd" file: \link[sp:00sp]{sp}
> >>
> >> Gabor
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:09 PM Wayne Oldford <rwoldf...@uwaterloo.ca>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi
> >>>
> >>> I got caught by this new test this week in trying to push an updated
> >>> release of the loon package to CRAN.
> >>>
> >>> By following this thread, I corrected my cross-references to external
> >>> packages but I got stymied by
> >>> the one I hoped to give to the "sp" package for Spatial data
> >>>
> >>> _________
> >>>
> >>> Here is the history:
> >>>
> >>> I tried
> >>> \link[sp:sp]{sp}
> >>> which failed here:
> >>> Debian:
> >>> <https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/loon_1.3.1_20200616_162128/Debian/00check.log>
> >>> Status: 1 WARNING
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That was meant to correct an earlier attempt (it did for other links to
> >>> "scales" for example) where I had tried
> >>> \link[sp]{sp}
> >>> and failed here:
> >>> Debian:
> >>> <https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/loon_1.3.1_20200615_213749/Debian/00check.log>
> >>> Status: 1 WARNING
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So to complete the possibilities as I understand them, I just now tried
> >>> \link{sp}
> >>> which, as might be expected, failed here:
> >>> Debian:
> >>> <https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/loon_1.3.1_20200616_213921/Debian/00check.log>
> >>> Status: 1 WARNING
> >>> As expected, error here was different: "Missing link" as opposed to
> >>> "Non-file package-anchored link"
> >>>
> >>> _________
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I am not sure whether I have missed a subtlety in WRE or that the
> >>> peculiar circumstance
> >>> where the package, the topic, and the file name are all identical (sp) is
> >>> some weird boundary case.
> >>>
> >>> Without further advice, I think I am just going to remove the link to
> >>> "sp".
> >>> It really is just a courtesy link to the package description for "sp".
> >>>
> >>> Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
> >>>
> >>> Wayne
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: R-package-devel <r-package-devel-boun...@r-project.org> on behalf
> >>> of Georgi Boshnakov <georgi.boshna...@manchester.ac.uk>
> >>> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 at 9:27 AM
> >>> To: Gábor Csárdi <csardi.ga...@gmail.com>, Duncan Murdoch
> >>> <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com>
> >>> Cc: List r-package-devel <r-package-devel@r-project.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] check cross-references error: Non-file
> >>> package-anchored link(s)
> >>>
> >>> I think that the current behaviour is documented in WRE:
> >>>
> >>> "...There are two other forms of optional argument specified as
> >>> \link[pkg]{foo} and
> >>> \link[pkg:bar]{foo} to link to the package pkg, to files foo.html
> >>> and bar.html respectively.
> >>> These are rarely needed, perhaps to refer to not-yet-installed
> >>> packages (but there the HTML
> >>> help system will resolve the link at run time) or in the normally
> >>> undesirable event that more
> >>> than one package offers help on a topic7 (in which case the present
> >>> package has precedence so
> >>> this is only needed to refer to other packages). They are currently
> >>> only used in HTML help
> >>> (and ignored for hyperlinks in LATEX conversions of help pages),
> >>> and link to the file rather
> >>> than the topic (since there is no way to know which topics are in
> >>> which files in an uninstalled
> >>> package) ... Because they have been frequently misused, the HTML
> >>> help system looks for topic foo in package pkg
> >>> if it does not find file foo.html."
> >>>
> >>> Unless I am missing something, it seems that it would be relatively
> >>> painless to reverse the logic of the current behaviour of the help system,
> >>> i.e. to start looking first for the topic and then for a file.
> >>>
> >>> Georgi Boshnakov
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: R-package-devel <r-package-devel-boun...@r-project.org> On
> >>> Behalf Of Gábor Csárdi
> >>> Sent: 16 June 2020 13:44
> >>> To: Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com>
> >>> Cc: List r-package-devel <r-package-devel@r-project.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] check cross-references error: Non-file
> >>> package-anchored link(s)
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:30 PM Duncan Murdoch
> >>> <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > On 15/06/2020 12:05 p.m., Martin Maechler wrote:
> >>> > >>>>>> Duncan Murdoch on Sun, 14 Jun 2020 07:28:03 -0400 writes:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > I agree with almost everything you wrote, except one
> >>> thing: this isn't
> >>> > > > newly enforced, it has been enforced since the help
> >>> system began. What
> >>> > > > I think is new is that there are now tests for it.
> >>> Previously those
> >>> > > > links just wouldn't work.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > Duncan Murdoch
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Yes, to all... including Duncan's agreement with Gábor.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Also, Duncan M earlier did mention that he had wanted to
> >>> > > *change* the link-to-file behavior for these cases (when he
> >>> wrote
> >>> > > most of the Rd2html source code) but somehow did not get it.
> >>> >
> >>> > Actually, I don't think I pushed for this change at the time (or
> >>> at
> >>> > least I didn't push much). I just wish now that I had, because I
> >>> > think it will be harder to do it now than it would have been then.
> >>> >
> >>> > Duncan
> >>>
> >>> I am not entirely sure, but maybe just documenting the current
> >>> behaviour and undoing 78674 could work. With some tweaks? E.g.
> >>>
> >>> * updating R-exts to say that \link[pkg:topic]{text} will link to
> >>> `topic.html` in `pkg` first (for historical reasons), and falls back to
> >>> searching for `topic` in `pkg` at render time.
> >>> * updating Rd2HTML to look for the topic and use it in the link,
> >>> instead of throwing a warning, in it cannot find `topic.html`
> >>> * removing the `R CMD check` warning for non-file links, that was
> >>> added in 78674 :)
> >>>
> >>> Is there anything else?
> >>>
> >>> Gabor
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> ______________________________________________
> >>> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
> >>> ______________________________________________
> >>> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ______________________________________________
> >>> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
> >>
> >> ______________________________________________
> >> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
> >>
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
> >
>
>
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
