Thanks Uwe.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
>
>
> On 21.04.2018 20:06, Steven Scott wrote:
>
>> No word from the maintainers.
>>
>
> Only one maintainer is reading this list.
>
>
> I submitted a revised version of the package
>> just now (with an updated date in DESCRIPTION).
On 21.04.2018 20:06, Steven Scott wrote:
No word from the maintainers.
Only one maintainer is reading this list.
I submitted a revised version of the package
just now (with an updated date in DESCRIPTION).
Thanks.
If someone could look at it in the next few days I'd appreciate it. Tha
No word from the maintainers. I submitted a revised version of the package
just now (with an updated date in DESCRIPTION).
If someone could look at it in the next few days I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Steven Scott
wrote:
> Thanks Dirk. IMO the package is in good
Thanks Dirk. IMO the package is in good shape otherwise. I'll wait hear
from the CRAN maintainers.
S
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 4 April 2018 at 14:15, Steven Scott wrote:
> | These appear to be caused by an ill formed std::set or std::function in
> the
> |
On 4 April 2018 at 14:15, Steven Scott wrote:
| These appear to be caused by an ill formed std::set or std::function in the
| STL implementation of the host machine. If I'm reading that wrong someone
| please let me know.
AFAICT it needs C++11 explicitly set which that machine (with a new clang-
I've been trying to update the Boom package to the next version, and it
hasn't been going so well. Hoping someone can help me figure out what next
steps I should take.
I got the attached mail from auto-check. From what I can tell the new
version of Boom (0.8.0) has two issues. Some long path na
