A hack that seems to work is (whitespace added for readability):
\newcommand{\Seqn}{
\ifelse{latex}{
\Sexpr[results=rd]{if (getRversion() < "4.2.2") "\\\\\\\\eqn{#1}" else
"\\\\\\\\eqn{#2}"}
}{
\ifelse{html}{
\Sexpr[results=rd]{if (getRversion() < "4.2.0") "\\\\\\\\eqn{#1}"
else "\\\\\\\\eqn{#2}"}
}{
\Sexpr[results=rd]{"\\\\\\\\eqn{#2}"}
}
}
}
as amsmath support for PDF output and KaTeX support for HTML output
were introduced in R 4.2.2 and 4.2.0, respectively.
Sadly I really do seem to need 8 escapes:
\Seqn{\\\\\\\\text{min}(m,n) \\\\\\\\times n}{min(m,n)-by-n}
Maybe one of the Rd experts here can suggest an improvement ...
Mikael
On 2023-11-01 5:06 am, Martin Maechler wrote:
Uwe Ligges
on Wed, 1 Nov 2023 06:26:23 +0100 writes:
> On 01.11.2023 03:51, Mikael Jagan wrote:
>> Thanks. It seems that we were mistaken in our feeling (IIRC) that it
would
>> be "OK" to implicitly require '--no-manual' on versions of R from 3.5.0
to
>> 4.2.1, not changing our Depends.
>>
>> We will fix this in Matrix 1.6-2, probably by conditionalizing or
otherwise
>> replacing the amsmath commands and probably _not_ by changing to depend
on
>> R >= 4.2.2. Martin may have more to say in "the morning".
I agree (*not* to raise Matrix pkg's R version dependency).
> Note that dependin on R >= 4.2.2 does not work. We need dependencies of
> the form R >= x.y.0. This is also part of the checks.
Yes, indeed.
And as we learned, R >= 4.2.0 would not help for r-oldrel-macos
I (am unhappy but) agree to take the responsibility for our
decision to go ahead and use much nicer LaTeX formula for
matrices etc, in our help pages {thinking that indeed people who'd
install Matrix on an old R version would always be able to read
Matrix manual pages via web search (as it seems to me 95% of
people do nowadays) ... or then have someone in their
organization to figure out how to use a newer amsmath (latex) package if
they really really want the Matrix pdf manual offline}.
Martin
> Reason is that we have only one binary repository for one R-x.y.?
> series. On WIndows, where we check with R-4.2.3, a binary would be
> created and hence R-4.2.[0-1] would not see any valid Matrix binaries.
> So please either make this work on R >= 4.2.0 or require R >= 4.3.0. If
> the latter, ideally with an interim version that works for R >= 4.2.0,
> so that we valid binaries with correct dependency declarations again.
> Best,
> Uwe
>> In the mean time (i.e., while we are stuck with Matrix 1.6-1.1), it may
>> help
>> to update to R 4.2.3 on r-oldrel-macos-* and/or to have EdSurvey revert
its
>> strict version requirement, unless there are clear examples justifying
one.
>>
>> Mikael
>>
>>
>> On 2023-10-31 8:17 pm, Simon Urbanek wrote:
>>> Mikael,
>>>
>>> in that case I think your requirements are wrong - Matrix says R >=
>>> 3.5.0 which is apparently incorrect - from what you say it should be
>>> 4.2.2?. I can certainly update to 4.2.3 if necessary.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Simon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 1/11/2023, at 9:19 AM, Mikael Jagan <jagan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. We did see those ERRORs, stemming from use (since Matrix
1.6-0)
>>>> of amsmath commands in Rd files. These have been supported since R
>>>> 4.2.2,
>>>> but r-oldrel-macos-* (unlike r-oldrel-windows-*) continues to run R
>>>> 4.2.0.
>>>> My expectation was that those machines would begin running R >= 4.2.2
>>>> well
>>>> before the R 4.4.0 release, but apparently that was wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I am hesitant to complicate our Rd files with conditions on R versions
>>>> only to support PDF output for R < 4.2.2, but maybe we can consider it
>>>> for the Matrix 1.6-2 release if it is really a barrier for others ...
>>>>
>>>> Mikael
>>>>
>>>> On 2023-10-31 3:33 pm, Simon Urbanek wrote:
>>>>> Mikael,
>>>>> current Matrix fails checks on R-oldrel so that's why only the last
>>>>> working version is installed:
>>>>> https://cran.r-project.org/web/checks/check_results_Matrix.html
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Simon
On 1/11/2023, at 4:05 AM, Mikael Jagan <jagan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
I am guessing that they mean EdSurvey:
>>>>>>
https://cran.r-project.org/web/checks/check_results_EdSurvey.html
>>>>>>
Probably Matrix 1.6-1.1 is not installed on r-oldrel-macos-arm64,
even though it can be, because it was not released until R 4.3-z.
>>>>>>
AFAIK, methods for 'qr' have not been touched since Matrix 1.6-0, and
even those changes should have been backwards compatible, modulo
handling
of dimnames (class sparseQR gained a Dimnames slot in 1.6-0).
>>>>>>
So I don't see a clear reason for requiring 1.6-1.1. Requiring 1.6-0
might make sense, if somehow EdSurvey depends on how class sparseQR
preserves dimnames. But IIRC our rev. dep. checks at that time did
not
reveal problems with EdSurvey.
>>>>>>
Mikael
>>>>>>
On 2023-10-31 7:00 am, r-package-devel-requ...@r-project.org wrote:
>>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>> can you give us a bit more detail? Which package, which build and
>>>>>>> where you got the errors? Older builds may not have the latest
>>>>>>> Matrix.
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>> On 31/10/2023, at 11:26 AM, Bailey, Paul via
>>>>>>>> R-package-devel<r-package-devel@r-project.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm the maintainer for a few packages, one of which is currently
>>>>>>>> failing CRAN checks on Mac OS because Matrix is not available in
>>>>>>>> my required version (the latest). I had to fix a few things due
>>>>>>>> to changes in the latest Matrix package because of how qr works
>>>>>>>> and I thought, given the apparent API change, I should then
>>>>>>>> require the latest version. My error is, "Package required and
>>>>>>>> available but unsuitable version: 'Matrix'"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I look at the NEWS in Matrix there is no mention of Mac OS
>>>>>>>> issues, what the latest stable version of Matrix is, nor when a
>>>>>>>> fix is expected. What version do MacOS version test Matrix with
>>>>>>>> by default? Where is this documented? I assumes it always tested
>>>>>>>> with the latest version on CRAN, so I'm a bit surprised. Or will
>>>>>>>> this be resolved soon and I shouldn't bother CRAN maintainers
>>>>>>>> with a new version of my package?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> 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
