On 10/28/2013 06:00 AM, r-devel-request at r-project.org
wrote:> On 13-10-26 9:49 PM, Simon Urbanek wrote:
>> > On Oct 25, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Yihui Xie wrote:
>> >
>>> >> This has been asked soooo many times that I think it may
be a good
>>> >> idea for R CMD check to just stop when the user passes a
directory
>>> >> instead of a tar ball to it, or automatically run R CMD
build before
>>> >> moving on. In my opinion, sometimes an FAQ and a bug are
not entirely
>>> >> different.
>>> >>
>> >
>> > +1 -- and I'd do the same for R CMD INSTALL. If someone
insists, there could be --force or something like that for those that really
want to work on directories despite all the issues with that, but IMHO the
default should be for both INSTALL and check to bail out if not presented with a
file -- it would save a lot of people a lot of time spent in chasing ghost
issues.
> That seems like a reasonable suggestion. I wouldn't want to lose the
> ability to install or check a directory; for development of packages
> like rgl which have a lot of compiled code, installing from a tarball
> takes a lot longer than installing when all of the code has already been
> compiled.
I use R CMD check on directories often. The survival and coxme pacakges have
large test
suites, and before things are packaged up for R forge there are may be multiple
iterations
to get past all of them. (Add one new idea, break something old). Creating the
tarball
is slow due to vignettes.
Thus I would hate to see it outlawed. Of course I know enough to ignore many
of the
warnings during this testing stage, I do use the tarball for my final run, and I
understand the noise level that this option incurs on R-devel.
Terry T.
