[Rd] Error in documentation for ?legend

To whom it may concern: The help page for ?legend refers to a `title.cex` parameter, which suggests that the function has such a parameter. As far as I can tell, though, it doesn't; here's an example: > plot(1,1) > legend("topright",pch=1, legend="something", title="my legend", title.cex=2)

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

Have the lawyers look at Microsoft R, it seems the license is not very catching ultimately. Perhaps you could use a similar ruse, or even align to that project instead. Cheers, Mike On Sat, Mar 25, 2017, 00:54 Mario Emmenlauer wrote: > > Dear All, > > I've been following

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Registering compiled functions and Winbuilder pre-check error

Thanks for the quick reply. Hmm. Well I’m not sure how to go about this. Should I change the name of the file? I assumed that it could init.c, but maybe that has changed. > On Mar 24, 2017, at 11:21 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > > On 24 March 2017 at 08:52, Jeremy

Re: [Bioc-devel] xps build problem on veracruz2

On 03/24/17 19:55, Hervé Pagès wrote: On 03/24/2017 11:37 AM, cstrato wrote: On 03/24/17 19:23, Hervé Pagès wrote: On 03/24/2017 11:10 AM, cstrato wrote: On 03/24/17 18:02, Hervé Pagès wrote: On 03/24/2017 06:52 AM, cstrato wrote: R/Bioc is still building on Mavericks, Not for R

Re: [Bioc-devel] xps build problem on veracruz2

On 03/24/2017 11:37 AM, cstrato wrote: On 03/24/17 19:23, Hervé Pagès wrote: On 03/24/2017 11:10 AM, cstrato wrote: On 03/24/17 18:02, Hervé Pagès wrote: On 03/24/2017 06:52 AM, cstrato wrote: R/Bioc is still building on Mavericks, Not for R devel (3.4). The R folks have switched to El

Re: [Bioc-devel] xps build problem on veracruz2

On 03/24/17 19:23, Hervé Pagès wrote: On 03/24/2017 11:10 AM, cstrato wrote: On 03/24/17 18:02, Hervé Pagès wrote: On 03/24/2017 06:52 AM, cstrato wrote: R/Bioc is still building on Mavericks, Not for R devel (3.4). The R folks have switched to El Capitan a few days ago: You are

Re: [Bioc-devel] xps build problem on veracruz2

On 03/24/2017 11:10 AM, cstrato wrote: On 03/24/17 18:02, Hervé Pagès wrote: On 03/24/2017 06:52 AM, cstrato wrote: R/Bioc is still building on Mavericks, Not for R devel (3.4). The R folks have switched to El Capitan a few days ago: You are right, I did not check R devel.

Re: [Bioc-devel] xps build problem on veracruz2

On 03/24/17 18:02, Hervé Pagès wrote: On 03/24/2017 06:52 AM, cstrato wrote: R/Bioc is still building on Mavericks, Not for R devel (3.4). The R folks have switched to El Capitan a few days ago: You are right, I did not check R devel. https://r.research.att.com/ and before was

Re: [Bioc-devel] xps build problem on veracruz2

On 03/24/2017 06:52 AM, cstrato wrote: R/Bioc is still building on Mavericks, Not for R devel (3.4). The R folks have switched to El Capitan a few days ago: https://r.research.att.com/ and before was built on Snow Leopard (which many people are sill using). Personally I think that it

[Bioc-devel] Rdevel on Windows

Hi, I submitted a couple of days ago my package `ideal` (https://github.com/Bioconductor/Contributions/issues/330). On Windows I am receiving a TIMEOUT error which I was not encountering. I setup another machine for testing & checking, and now it seems R-devel is identified as 3.5 (I was

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 24 March 2017 at 17:04, Joris Meys wrote: > | attached. So including the closed source libraries as Mario wanted to do, > | is not accepted on CRAN. > > He never said he wanted to upload to CRAN. > > He asked

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

On 24 March 2017 at 17:04, Joris Meys wrote: | attached. So including the closed source libraries as Mario wanted to do, | is not accepted on CRAN. He never said he wanted to upload to CRAN. He asked whether he can use the open source work in his closed source product. Dirk --

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Registering compiled functions and Winbuilder pre-check error

On 24 March 2017 at 08:52, Jeremy Beaulieu wrote: | * checking compiled code ... NOTE | File 'hisse/libs/i386/hisse.dll': | Found no call to: 'R_registerRoutines' | File 'hisse/libs/x64/hisse.dll': | Found no call to: 'R_registerRoutines' | | It is good practice to register native routines and

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

The key difference being that while not under the GPL, highcharter is still open source. There isn't a single compiled library in the entire package. WinBUGS otoh is closed source (although there is an open source version of it, OpenBUGS). As far as I understood, CRAN doesn't accept packages

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

There are also packages like highcharter, which package proprietary software without a license, but it is incumbent on the user to respect the license of the underlying library. -Original Message- From: R-devel [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Joris Meys Sent:

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

My humble 2 nonlegal cents: There are multiple packages that make the link between R and proprietary software. One example is R2WinBUGS which connects to WinBUGS, but there are a lot more of these. All of these use essentially the same idea: - create the package under a standard GPL license -

[R-pkg-devel] Registering compiled functions and Winbuilder pre-check error

Hi all: So, I’m trying to submit a new version of a package of mine and have run into the new registration of compiled functions requirement. I’ve followed all the instructions, made sure the code runs properly, and ran the package checks. Everything seems fine and there are no errors or notes

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

See inline... > On Mar 24, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Mario Emmenlauer wrote: > > > Dear All, > > I've been following this mailing list for over three years now, but > its just now that I have realized that R is licensed under GPL! :-) > > I'm not a lawyer and I don't want lawyer

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

I have no direct experience in this regard, but this FAQ seems to answer your question. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL I read this to mean that the answer may be different depending on whether your code links against R libraries or simply uses R as an

[Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

Dear All, I've been following this mailing list for over three years now, but its just now that I have realized that R is licensed under GPL! :-) I'm not a lawyer and I don't want lawyer advice, but I'd like to get your feedback on a license question. My goal is to develop commercial software

Re: [Bioc-devel] xps build problem on veracruz2

R/Bioc is still building on Mavericks, and before was built on Snow Leopard (which many people are sill using). Personally I think that it does not make much difference whether Mavericks or El Capitan (or Yosemite) is used to build R/Bioc. However, Sierra is different, and when the CRAN

Re: [Rd] A question on stats::as.hclust.dendrogram

> Ma,Man Chun John > on Thu, 23 Mar 2017 19:29:25 + writes: > Hi all, > This is the first time I'm writing to R-devel, and this time I'm just asking for the purpose for a certain line of code in stats::as.hclust.dendrogram, which comes up as I'm

Re: [Bioc-devel] Unit Tests & Test Coverage

Hi Hervé, Thanks for all the clarifications related to the tests and the coverage for packages. Yes, I've just checked EventPointer landing page and the coverage bad is working great at this moment. It seems that it was just a matter of time before it was displayed. Again, thanks for all.