Full_Name: Jürgen Henge-Ernst Version: 1.5.1 OS: linux Submission from: (NULL) (130.83.244.130) There seems to be a error in the VR-packages/ 7.0-3 which leads don't pass the test by running the R-check hernst@laptop:~/R/R-1.5.1> R CMD check /usr/lib/R/library/MASS/ * checking for working latex ... OK * using log directory '/home/hernst/R/R-1.5.1/MASS.Rcheck' * Installing *binary* package 'MASS' ... * DONE (MASS) * DONE (INSTALL) * checking for file 'MASS/DESCRIPTION' ... OK * checking package directory ... OK * checking for sufficient/correct file permissions ... OK * checking DESCRIPTION Package field ... OK * checking DESCRIPTION Version field ... OK * checking DESCRIPTION License field ... OK * checking DESCRIPTION Description field ... OK * checking DESCRIPTION Title field ... OK * checking DESCRIPTION Author field ... OK * checking DESCRIPTION Maintainer field ... OK * checking DESCRIPTION Depends field ... OK * checking R files for syntax errors ... ERROR Syntax error in file -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
That's not an error in the VR bundle (sic), but it is an error *by you* in the usage of R CMD check (sic). From `Writing R extensions' <p>Using <code>R CMD check</code>, the R package checker, one can test whether <em>source</em> R packages work correctly. and the under-qualified pilot applied it to a *binary* installed package, despite the emphasized warning. On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 juergen@henge-ernst.de wrote:> Full_Name: Jürgen Henge-Ernst > Version: 1.5.1 > OS: linux > Submission from: (NULL) (130.83.244.130) > > > There seems to be a error in the VR-packages/ 7.0-3 which leads don't pass the > test > by running the R-check > > hernst@laptop:~/R/R-1.5.1> R CMD check /usr/lib/R/library/MASS/ > * checking for working latex ... OK > * using log directory '/home/hernst/R/R-1.5.1/MASS.Rcheck' > > * Installing *binary* package 'MASS' ... > * DONE (MASS) > > * DONE (INSTALL) > > * checking for file 'MASS/DESCRIPTION' ... OK > * checking package directory ... OK > * checking for sufficient/correct file permissions ... OK > * checking DESCRIPTION Package field ... OK > * checking DESCRIPTION Version field ... OK > * checking DESCRIPTION License field ... OK > * checking DESCRIPTION Description field ... OK > * checking DESCRIPTION Title field ... OK > * checking DESCRIPTION Author field ... OK > * checking DESCRIPTION Maintainer field ... OK > * checking DESCRIPTION Depends field ... OK > * checking R files for syntax errors ... ERROR > Syntax error in file > > > > -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- > r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html > Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" > (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch > _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._ >-- Brian D. Ripley, ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272860 (secr) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595 -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 10:00:11PM +0200, ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk wrote:> and the under-qualified pilot applied it to a *binary* installed package, > despite the emphasized warning.I wonder if "R CMD check ... " could abort with an error message if it is applied to a binary package? Dirk -- Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement. -- Fred Brooks -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:> On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 10:00:11PM +0200, ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk wrote: > > and the under-qualified pilot applied it to a *binary* installed package, > > despite the emphasized warning. > > I wonder if "R CMD check ... " could abort with an error message if it is > applied to a binary package?I am not sure how simple that is. It used to be hard to tell source and binary packages apart. What we can do is to test for Built: in the DESCRIPTION file, which will cope with people who have built the package recently. The trouble with idiot-proofing is anticipating the idiot: as far as I am aware this is a first. In all other cases I tried the INSTALL part of R CMD check failed. -- Brian D. Ripley, ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272860 (secr) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595 -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 18 June 2002 08:35, you wrote:> I seem not to have seen your apology for an incorrect report on my VR > bundle, which was a public accusation of an error by me. > > Please explain why not!I've been looking into the Docu what the R CMD check is doing or should do and why excatly that package is throwing that error. I've build a lot of other packages which seem to pass that check e.g. GeneSOM without showing an error The install and check ist done the following way: unzip the tar.gz in a dirctory cp GeneSOM/DESCRIPTION . /usr/bin/R INSTALL -l $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/R/library GeneSOM /usr/bin/R CMD check GeneSOM But unfortunaly I haven't figured out how to use the check CMD the right way. As there have been a lot of contib-packages which pass through that way, I thought there must be an error somewhere in the test-scrips. So srory to bother you with that false alarm. Greetings Jürgen - -- Juergen Henge-Ernst // Hauptstrasse 37 // 67591 Mölsheim // Germany email: juergen@henge-ernst.de ICQ 56324358 Key fingerprint = 5FFD 89AC 6C7B 76DD 5FAC 9A3F D1A9 0C9B 3B49 67B1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9DuKu0akMmztJZ7ERAmW6AJwIMe90Em0TIgVlv1VY18UU7iJjqACfb9gf 3IZZ9uAz5EVgOyavdkDPvzQ=rqTq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
>>>>> ripley writes:> On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 10:00:11PM +0200, ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk wrote: >> > and the under-qualified pilot applied it to a *binary* installed package, >> > despite the emphasized warning. >> >> I wonder if "R CMD check ... " could abort with an error message if it is >> applied to a binary package?> I am not sure how simple that is. It used to be hard to tell source > and binary packages apart. What we can do is to test for Built: in > the DESCRIPTION file, which will cope with people who have built the > package recently.This was introduced in 1.4 I think (?) so it seems we can change the heuristics now to rely on the correspondence Built: <-> binary. I will soon (once I have time again) change INSTALL accordingly.> The trouble with idiot-proofing is anticipating the idiot: as far as I > am aware this is a first.> In all other cases I tried the INSTALL part of R CMD check failed.We need better integration of INSTALL into check anyway. But we can have more idiot-proofing in check as well. Something in the works is a reorganization of INSTALL/check/build with something else needed for creating front-matter stuff, and we also need to rethink the logic of check (e.g., verify correctness of meta-information prior to trying to install). -k -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._