On 20 Jan 2014, at 15:15, Gábor Csárdi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Federico Calboli <[email protected]> > wrote: > [...] > I do that *with the current release of R* and I never had an issue > whatsoever. Incidentally the words 'This should be done with the current > version of R-devel (or if that is not possible, current R-patched or the > current release of R' translate in plainspeak 'run R CMD check --as-cran with > whatever version of R provided it's not outdated'. > > That's an interesting "translation". That's as interesting as the English language makes it -- please note of the expression 'should' as opposed to 'must', and the list of three options of R versions. > Are you a CRAN maintainer? I maintain two packages on CRAN, if that's what you're asking. > > I guess you were just lucky so far. Most packages are small and not affected > by changes between R-release and R-devel. But some of them are. > > Also, R-devel typically has more rigorous package checks than R-release. Does it? > My package was delayed several times because it did not pass checks in > R-devel (it did in R-release). I guess this happened to other packages as > well, hence the sentence above was included in the policies. I presume that the issue is this: some packages are written solely in R, hence, unless one uses a particular and outdated syntax, there are no differences between R-devel and and R-current, whereas packages that call C/C++/Fortran code are subject to the vagaries of compilers and operating systems, and using R-devel should help future proofing the package, while maintaing compatibility with R-current. BW F > > Gabor
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ R-SIG-Mac mailing list [email protected] https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mac
