[Rd] BUG: the quiet option in the install.packages function

2017-02-24 Thread Zhiqiu Hu 
Dear utils/R Package maintainers,

Since I'm still using version 3.3.2, please ignore this message if the bug
has already been fixed.

*BUG: *
The install.packages function still generate outputs even if
set quiet=TRUE.

*POSSIBLE REASON:*
The issue is seemly due to that the quiet parameter was not passed to the
download.file function.

#
install.packages(pkgs, lib, repos = getOption("repos"),
 contriburl = contrib.url(repos, type),
 method, available = NULL, destdir = NULL,
 dependencies = NA, type = getOption("pkgType"),
 configure.args = getOption("configure.args"),
 configure.vars = getOption("configure.vars"),
 clean = FALSE, Ncpus = getOption("Ncpus", 1L),
 verbose = getOption("verbose"),
 libs_only = FALSE, INSTALL_opts, quiet = FALSE,
 keep_outputs = FALSE, ...)

... Arguments to be passed to download.file or to the functions for binary
installs on OS X and Windows (which accept an argument "lock": see the
section on ‘Locking’).
#

Since only (...) were passed to the download.file, the quite parameter
specified in install.packages will not work for the download.file function.

*SOLUTION: *
To fix the bug, please
(1) to pass the quiet parameter to the download.file in the
install.packages function, or
(2) to use another variable name for the "quiet" option, so that users can
decide the outputs of the download.file function when they install package.

Thank you very much.

Regards

Zhiqiu

[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Re: [Rd] Update copyright year in manuals

2017-02-24 Thread frederik 
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 03:23:10PM +0100, Martin Maechler wrote:
> > Mikko Korpela 
> > on Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:02:58 +0200 writes:
> 
> > With new R releases soon to come, I suggest updating the
> > Rcopyright macro in "doc/manual/R-defs.texi" to use year
> > 2017.
> 
> Now this is an e-mail that *REALLY* does not fit to the R-devel
> mailing list ... even though it is very very slightly related to
> the R sources.
> 
> We do *not* want noise on R-devel, please.
> 
> (and let's continue this issue in private if you want)
> Martin

Martin, I'm confused. Should Mikko have sent his suggestion to the
bugtracker, or just left it to the R Core Team to figure out for
themselves? Are we not grateful for valid suggestions? What's the
lesson here? Maybe I'm the only slow one on the list, but to me your
reply would have been a bit more helpful if it told us what to do, not
just what not to do...

Thank you,

Frederick

__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel