Ross Boylan r...@biostat.ucsf.edu writes:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:48 +, Benilton Carvalho wrote:
How about using:
Enhances: Rmpi
This unique local bestiary of dependencies is quite inconvenient for
anyone trying to connect R with any other system of package
management. Below, I've
On 20.01.2010 20:11, Allen S. Rout wrote:
Ross Boylanr...@biostat.ucsf.edu writes:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:48 +, Benilton Carvalho wrote:
How about using:
Enhances: Rmpi
This unique local bestiary of dependencies is quite inconvenient for
anyone trying to connect R with any other
A working system exists at
http://debian.cran.r-project.org
with automated builds (ie automated resolutions of both built-time and
run-time dependencies) of over 2000 packages for both 64-bit Linux (amd64)
and 32-bit Linux (i386) of the Debian 'testing' distribution. Charles and
I
On 1/15/10 7:51 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
the Windows checks for CRAN run with that setting, i.e.
_R_CHECK_FORCE_SUGGESTS_=false
Hence the multicore issue mentioned below actually does not exist.
I did not know that the Windows checks for CRAN used this setting.
My concern was initiated by a
On 1/15/10 7:47 AM, Simon Urbanek wrote:
On Jan 15, 2010, at 10:22 , Seth Falcon wrote:
I believe another option is:
pkg - somePkg
pkgAvail - require(pkg, character.only = TRUE)
if (pkgAvail)
...
else
...
That is not an option - that is the code you usually use
On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 07:49 -0800, Seth Falcon wrote:
Package authors
should be responsible enough to test their codes with and without
optional features.
It seems unlikely most package authors will have access to a full range
of platform types.
Ross
On 16 January 2010 at 10:53, Ross Boylan wrote:
| On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 07:49 -0800, Seth Falcon wrote:
| Package authors
| should be responsible enough to test their codes with and without
| optional features.
| It seems unlikely most package authors will have access to a full range
| of
Jeff Ryan writes:
Hi Ross,
The quantmod package makes available routines from a variety of
contributed packages, but gets around your issues with a bit of, um,
trickery.
Take a look here (unless your name is Kurt ;-) ):
But Kurt will we happy to tell you that you can turn off forcing
How about using:
Enhances: Rmpi
?
b
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Ross Boylan r...@biostat.ucsf.edu wrote:
I have a package that can use rmpi, but works fine without it. None of
the automatic test code invokes rmpi functionality. (One test file
illustrates how to use it, but has quit()
On 1/15/10 12:19 AM, Kurt Hornik wrote:
Jeff Ryan writes:
Hi Ross,
The quantmod package makes available routines from a variety of
contributed packages, but gets around your issues with a bit of, um,
trickery.
Take a look here (unless your name is Kurt ;-) ):
I believe another option
On Jan 15, 2010, at 10:22 , Seth Falcon wrote:
On 1/15/10 12:19 AM, Kurt Hornik wrote:
Jeff Ryan writes:
Hi Ross,
The quantmod package makes available routines from a variety of
contributed packages, but gets around your issues with a bit of, um,
trickery.
Take a look here (unless your
On 15.01.2010 16:22, Seth Falcon wrote:
On 1/15/10 12:19 AM, Kurt Hornik wrote:
Jeff Ryan writes:
Hi Ross,
The quantmod package makes available routines from a variety of
contributed packages, but gets around your issues with a bit of, um,
trickery.
Take a look here (unless your name is
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Seth Falcon wrote:
There is a real need (of some kind) here. Not all packages work on all
platforms. For example, the multicore package provides a mechanism for
running parallel computations on a multi-cpu box, but it is not
available on Windows. A package that _is_
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:19 +0100, Kurt Hornik wrote:
The idea is that maintainers typically want to
fully check their functionality, suggesting to force suggests by
default.
This might be the nub of the problem. There are different audiences,
even for R CMD check.
The maintainer probably
On Jan 15, 2010, at 12:18 , Ross Boylan wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:19 +0100, Kurt Hornik wrote:
The idea is that maintainers typically want to
fully check their functionality, suggesting to force suggests by
default.
This might be the nub of the problem. There are different audiences,
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:48 +, Benilton Carvalho wrote:
How about using:
Enhances: Rmpi
?
b
The main reason is that enhances seems a peculiar way to describe the
relation between a package that (optionally) uses a piece of
infrastructure and the infrastructure. Similarly, I would
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 12:34 -0500, Simon Urbanek wrote:
On Jan 15, 2010, at 12:18 , Ross Boylan wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:19 +0100, Kurt Hornik wrote:
The idea is that maintainers typically want to
fully check their functionality, suggesting to force suggests by
default.
This
I have a package that can use rmpi, but works fine without it. None of
the automatic test code invokes rmpi functionality. (One test file
illustrates how to use it, but has quit() as its first command.)
What's the best way to handle this? In particular, what is the
appropriate form for upload
Hi Ross,
The quantmod package makes available routines from a variety of
contributed packages, but gets around your issues with a bit of, um,
trickery.
Take a look here (unless your name is Kurt ;-) ):
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 00:12 -0600, Jeff Ryan wrote:
Hi Ross,
The quantmod package makes available routines from a variety of
contributed packages, but gets around your issues with a bit of, um,
trickery.
Take a look here (unless your name is Kurt ;-) ):
20 matches
Mail list logo
