On 2025-03-31 1:04 p.m., Duncan Murdoch wrote:> On 2025-03-31 12:41 p.m., Josiah Parry wrote: >> Duncan, the changes to symbols checking was introduced March 22nd see >> https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18789 <https://bugs.r- >> project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18789> and https://developer.r- >> project.org/blosxom.cgi/R-devel/NEWS/2025/03/22#n2025-03-22 <https:// >> developer.r-project.org/blosxom.cgi/R-devel/ >> NEWS/2025/03/22#n2025-03-22>. But that is unrelated. > > Sorry, I missed that. > >> >> To Tim's comment?the check is a simple grep of the installation?log >> for "Downloading crates." This could be easily circumvented on CRAN >> and locally by suppressing stdout/err. But that would be adversarial >> and I would like to adhere to the intent of the check. > > I think Tim was suggesting that you modify your Github action to ignore > this particular warning.? The warning would still appear, but it > wouldn't cause a check failure. > > Duncan MurdochAt a very quick look, I don't see an easy way to do that (but I am admittedly really bad at doing stuff with Github actions). Maybe longer term, but it feels like the best way to do this would be to request a feature in `rcmdcheck` that allowed the user to request ignoring specific warnings (e.g. specified by regexp?), then expose that feature in the r-check-package action (or whatever it's called ...)> > > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 9:23?AM Duncan Murdoch >> <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> ??? On 2025-03-31 11:50 a.m., Josiah Parry wrote: >> ???? > Following up with this as I address the new R-devel "Compiled code >> ???? > should not call entry points which might terminate R" WARNING and >> ??? this >> ???? > issue has reared its head again. >> ???? > >> ???? > Would a path forward be an environment variable similar >> ???? > to?_R_CHECK_CRAN_INCOMING_ to skip this check primarily for GitHub >> ???? > Actions and CI? >> >> ??? The "Compiled code should not call entry points which might >> ??? terminate R" >> ??? isn't a new warning.? I think the last change to it was made in 2022. >> >> ??? Maybe your code, or code in one of the libraries you use, has >> changed? >> >> ??? Duncan Murdoch >> >> >> >> >> ???? > >> ???? > Or, alternatively, if this could be a NOTE when the `--as-cran` >> flag >> ???? > isn't set but a WARNING when it is? >> ???? > >> ???? > Re-vendoring dependencies each time they are changed during the >> ???? > development lifecycle is quite a bit. However, vendoring once >> ??? prior to >> ???? > publishing makes good sense. >> ???? > >> ???? > Is there a balance we can strike here to lower development >> ??? friction but >> ???? > also ensure the robust package installation requirements when >> ??? expected? >> ???? > >> ???? > Using >> ???? > >> ???? > >> ???? > >> ???? > >> ???? > On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 11:42?AM Duncan Murdoch >> ??? <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> >> ???? > <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com >> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>>> wrote: >> ???? > >> ???? >? ? ?On 2025-03-02 1:09 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote: >> ???? >? ? ? >? ? I, like Duncan, am just following along here. I think >> there >> ???? >? ? ?might be >> ???? >? ? ? > two distinct questions which it would be useful to keep >> ??? distinct: >> ???? >? ? ? > >> ???? >? ? ? >? ? * how to silence the rust-check if desired? >> ???? >? ? ? > >> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?rather than debating whether the rust-check should be >> ??? always-on, >> ???? >? ? ? > on-for-CRAN-only, etc., would it provide for useful >> ??? flexibility >> ???? >? ? ?to add >> ???? >? ? ? > an environment variable that enables/disables this >> ???? >? ? ?functionality?? There >> ???? >? ? ? > are already 168 of these environment variables, how much >> would >> ???? >? ? ?one more >> ???? >? ? ? > cost? >> ???? > >> ???? >? ? ?I may have misunderstood Josiah.? I thought his message said >> ??? that it is >> ???? >? ? ?already easy to silence the check, by stopping the code from >> ??? issuing >> ???? >? ? ?the >> ???? >? ? ?message the check is looking for. >> ???? > >> ???? >? ? ?Presumably the package shouldn't do that, but if there's an >> ??? environment >> ???? >? ? ?variable that can be set to do it, then the repository or >> ??? user can >> ???? >? ? ?choose to do it, so there's no need for R to add another >> ??? environment >> ???? >? ? ?variable. >> ???? > >> ???? >? ? ?BTW, as far as I can see current R-devel doesn't issue an >> ??? error, it >> ???? >? ? ?just >> ???? >? ? ?issues warnings about two issues: >> ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? ? - the package is downloading crates >> ???? >? ? ? ? - the rustc compiler doesn't report a version number >> ???? > >> ???? >? ? ?Duncan Murdoch >> ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? > >> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?I'm not sure how adding an environment variable to >> ??? allow easier >> ???? >? ? ? > user/alternate-repository control of the check is >> "against the >> ???? >? ? ?spirit of >> ???? >? ? ? > the check" ... >> ???? >? ? ? > >> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?All the existing check-regulating env variables ... >> ???? >? ? ? > >> ???? >? ? ? > cd src/library/tools/R >> ???? >? ? ? > grep 'Sys.getenv("_R_CHECK' * | sed -e >> ??? 's/^.*Sys.getenv(//' | sed -e >> ???? >? ? ? > 's/[,)].*//' | sort | uniq | wc >> ???? >? ? ? > >> ???? >? ? ? > >> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?* should CRAN allow Rust crates to be downloaded? >> ???? >? ? ? > >> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?This is a much more fundamental policy decision, which >> ??? I have no >> ???? >? ? ? > opinion about. >> ???? >? ? ? > >> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?cheers >> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ? Ben Bolker >> ???? >? ? ? > >> ???? >? ? ? > >> ???? >? ? ? > >> ???? >? ? ? > >> ???? >? ? ? > On 2025-03-02 12:21 p.m., Duncan Murdoch wrote: >> ???? >? ? ? >> On 2025-03-02 11:03 a.m., Josiah Parry wrote: >> ???? >? ? ? >>> Well this has surely veered off course! >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>> As the one who filed the BugZilla report, I'd like to >> ??? redirect the >> ???? >? ? ? >>> conversation and provide further context. >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>> The question should?be /"how do we get a dialogue >> ??? started on this >> ???? >? ? ? >>> bugzilla issue before the next minor / >> ???? >? ? ? >>> /release of R?"/ >> ???? >? ? ? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >> Isn't this exactly that dialogue? >> ???? >? ? ? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>> The current check for Rust-based R package's downloading >> ??? external >> ???? >? ? ? >>> dependencies works by looking at >> ???? >? ? ? >>> the output logs for the presence of? "Downloading >> ??? crates." This >> ???? >? ? ?can is >> ???? >? ? ? >>> an entirely fine requirement for >> ???? >? ? ? >>> CRAN?however, due to the fact that it is an error, >> packages >> ???? >? ? ? >>> distributed through other repositories >> ???? >? ? ? >>> fail the R-CMD check. >> ???? >? ? ? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >> I think you misunderstood me.? CRAN shares the view I >> ??? gave that you >> ???? >? ? ? >> should be able to run old code to reproduce old >> results, but >> ???? >? ? ?they aren't >> ???? >? ? ? >> the only ones.? That's always been a goal of R. >> ???? >? ? ? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >>> Folks who use R-universe or PPM or some mysterious third >> ??? thing >> ???? >? ? ?may not >> ???? >? ? ? >>> share the same philosophy as >> ???? >? ? ? >>> CRAN and prefer the convenience of fetching the >> ??? dependencies at >> ???? >? ? ? >>> compile time and not vendoring them. >> ???? >? ? ? >>> An alternative would be for the check to be optionally >> ??? skipped or >> ???? >? ? ? >>> become a NOTE when the CRAN >> ???? >? ? ? >>> flag is not set and an ERROR otherwise. Skipping this >> CRAN >> ???? >? ? ?check is as >> ???? >? ? ? >>> easy as adding `--quiet` >> ???? >? ? ? >>> or setting an environment variable?but that is against >> the >> ???? >? ? ?spirit of >> ???? >? ? ? >>> the check. >> ???? >? ? ? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >> If it is that easy to skip the check, then I really >> don't see >> ???? >? ? ?the issue. >> ???? >? ? ? >>? ??Just ask the repository where you want to put your >> ??? package to >> ???? >? ? ?put that >> ???? >? ? ? >> option or environment variable in place, and there's no >> ??? longer a >> ???? >? ? ?problem. >> ???? >? ? ? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >> Duncan Murdoch >> ???? >? ? ? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >>> Ideally, the check can remain, but scoped appropriately. >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 6:49?AM Duncan Murdoch >> ???? >? ? ? >>> <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com >> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com >> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>> >> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com >> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com >> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>>>> >> ???? >? ? ?wrote: >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? You seem to be taking a confontational tone, which >> ??? isn't >> ???? >? ? ?likely to >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? encourage a reasonable dialogue. >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? I've looked for other messages on this, and didn't >> ??? see any >> ???? >? ? ?besides >> ???? >? ? ? >>> this >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? one explaining why including check_rust() in the >> ??? checks is >> ???? >? ? ?a problem. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? The problem you talk about here is that it >> encourages >> ???? >? ? ?vendoring, >> ???? >? ? ? >>> which >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? makes it harder for package authors to count >> downloads. >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? To be honest, that doesn't seem like a very serious >> ???? >? ? ?problem.? I >> ???? >? ? ? >>> assume >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the packages ("crates") we are talking about are >> open >> ???? >? ? ?source, so >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? this is >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? entirely in the spirit of how they are allowed to be >> ???? >? ? ?distributed. >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? If they aren't open source, then users of those >> ??? packages >> ???? >? ? ?should be >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? warned about that, and a check failure is a good >> ??? way to do >> ???? >? ? ?that. >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? So you need to explain why it is important to be >> ??? able to >> ???? >? ? ?download and >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? install software and not be warned about it. >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? I am not in R Core or CRAN, but I can suggest why >> it is >> ???? >? ? ?better to >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? include source in the package:? it makes the use of >> ??? that >> ???? >? ? ?package more >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? reliable in the future.? It's not uncommon to run >> an R >> ???? >? ? ?computation >> ???? >? ? ? >>> that >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? was written a few years ago.? Sometimes libraries >> or R >> ???? >? ? ?have changed, >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? and >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? a user will need to go back to a previous version to >> ???? >? ? ?reproduce the >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? calculation.? Being able to able to rebuild a >> ??? system as it >> ???? >? ? ?would have >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? been back then is important. >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? Is that possible if the package needs to make a >> ??? download?? The >> ???? >? ? ? >>> download >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? site that worked a few years ago may no longer >> ??? exist.? If >> ???? >? ? ?the site >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? exists, the code versions there may be different. >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? Those are some of the issues that Simon was >> ??? alluding to. >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? Duncan Murdoch >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? On 2025-03-02 5:45 a.m., Mossa Merhi Reimert via >> ??? R-devel >> ???? >? ? ?wrote: >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Dear Simon Urbanek, >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > There has been very little engagement with the >> ??? issue I >> ???? >? ? ?referred >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? to. If it was decided that this ?check? ought to be >> ??? part >> ???? >? ? ?of the >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? default checks for R, >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > then that could have been written to us. Either >> ??? on the >> ???? >? ? ? >>> bugs.r-project.org <http://bugs.r-project.org> >> ??? <http://bugs.r-project.org <http://bugs.r-project.org>> >> ???? >? ? ?<http://bugs.r-project.org <http://bugs.r-project.org> >> ??? <http://bugs.r-project.org <http://bugs.r-project.org>>> or the >> proposed >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? patch. Before we talk about anything else, >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > it does seem very strange that we cannot get a >> ??? reasonable >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? dialogue going. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > I would like to say that the R/Rust community >> ??? has grown >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? substantially. From my end, there are 3 bindings >> ??? project, >> ???? >? ? ?extendr, >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? savvy, and roxido. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Then, there are now many rust-based packages on >> ??? CRAN, >> ???? >? ? ?see this >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? most recent compiled list >> ???? > https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs >> ??? <https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs >> ??? <https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs >> ??? <https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs >> ??? <https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs>>>. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > There is also proof-of-concept >> ???? >? ? ? >>> https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust >> ??? <https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust >> ??? <https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust >> ??? <https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust >> ??? <https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust>>> that integrates `cargo`, >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? rust?s official build system, with R?s package >> ??? build system, >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > and https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc >> ??? <https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc >> ??? <https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc >> ??? <https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc >> ??? <https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc>>>, which showcases how Rust >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? compiler could be directly linked with R?s package >> ??? system. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >? ?Let me say, that the current R CMD check is >> ??? not meant >> ???? >? ? ?to be >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? ?helpful?. When a package is built, `cargo` tells >> ??? the user >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? ?Downloading crates?. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Thus, this information is already conveyed to >> ??? the user. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Personally, I do wish we could debate this >> ??? requirement >> ???? >? ? ?further. I >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? do not believe that having R-packages on CRAN >> ??? vendor rust >> ???? >? ? ? >>> dependencies >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > as a good policy. Download statistics is a >> success >> ???? >? ? ?metric of a >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? given r-package and rust packages. By insisting on >> ???? >? ? ?vendoring, and >> ???? >? ? ? >>> thus >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > side-stepping `cargo` / crates.io >> ??? <http://crates.io> <http://crates.io <http://crates.io>> >> ???? >? ? ?<http://crates.io <http://crates.io> <http://crates.io >> ??? <http://crates.io>>>, we are >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? robbing upstream authors of their download-numbers. >> ??? I do >> ???? >? ? ?not think >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? such policy is honourable. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > While C/C++ do not have official package >> ??? repositories, >> ???? >? ? ?it could >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? be thought of, as fair game, to have CRAN act as a >> ??? pseudo >> ???? >? ? ?package >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? manager for C/C++ libraries. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > I?m not going to argue for or against this part. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > There are many objections from the CRAN side to >> ??? all things >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? related to Rust. I don?t want to open multiple >> ??? topics in >> ???? >? ? ?the same >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? thread. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > But there is plenty to bring up. And I had >> hoped we >> ???? >? ? ?could talk >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? this little issue through, before embarking on a >> larger >> ???? >? ? ?discussion. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > I do not appreciate the ?random demands? >> comment, as >> ???? >? ? ?this is not >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? a demand, nor is it random. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > I have inquired my end of the community for >> ??? suggestions >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > to compile a larger proposal, but then I was >> afraid >> ???? >? ? ?that this >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? would be perceived as a big, bulky demand. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Rust is not C/C++/Java, and the support for Rust >> ??? cannot >> ???? >? ? ?look like >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the support for these languages. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > From: Simon Urbanek <simon.urbanek at R-project.org> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Date: Sunday, 2 March 2025 at 00.39 >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > To: Mossa Merhi Reimert <mossa at sund.ku.dk >> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk> >> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>> <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk> >> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>>>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Cc: r-devel at r-project.org >> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> >> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>> >> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> >> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <r-devel at r-project.org >> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org >> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>> >> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> >> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>>>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Subject: Re: [Rd] R CMD check and CRAN's Rust >> policy >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > [Du f?r ikke ofte mails fra >> ??? simon.urbanek at r-project.org <mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org> >> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org >> ??? <mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org >> ??? <mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org> >> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org >> ??? <mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org>>>. F? mere at vide om, hvorfor >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? dette er vigtigt, p? >> ???? > https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification >> ??? <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification >> ??? <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification >> ??? <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification >> ??? <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>>> ] >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Mossa, >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > the issue you cite is lacking any pertinent >> ??? information >> ???? >? ? ?and it's >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? not even clear why it should be an issue. The >> check is >> ???? >? ? ?perfectly >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? justified, it just reports whether a package >> using rust >> ???? >? ? ?declares >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? this correctly and where it downloads 3rd party >> ??? content - >> ???? >? ? ?something >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? that is important to R users in general and not >> ??? related to >> ???? >? ? ?CRAN. I >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? don't see how any of this is "prohibitive" it just >> ??? calls >> ???? >? ? ?out what >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the package is already doing. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > As discussed before, my hope was that the "R"ust >> ???? >? ? ?community will >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? mature enough to work on proper support. It is not >> ??? clear >> ???? >? ? ?that it >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? happened yet, but once it does it would make sense >> ??? to talk >> ???? >? ? ?about >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? support just as we have for C, C++ and Java, so >> ??? certainly that >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? should be the right discussion. However, it will >> ??? have to >> ???? >? ? ?start with >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? some thinking and a proposal on how the associated >> ??? issues >> ???? >? ? ?(compiler >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? support, versioning, dependency sources etc.) are >> to be >> ???? >? ? ?addressed, >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? as opposed to making random demands. All this has >> ??? nothing >> ???? >? ? ?to do with >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? CRAN so the issue you mention seems irrelevant to >> the >> ???? >? ? ?progress. Also >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? I'd like to know what are the "challenges >> embedded in R >> ???? >? ? ?itself". >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Cheers, >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Simon >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> On Mar 2, 2025, at 8:45 AM, Mossa Merhi >> Reimert via >> ???? >? ? ?R-devel >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <r-devel at r-project.org >> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org >> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>> >> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> >> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>>>> >> wrote: >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Hello everyone! >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> I'm Mossa, I'm one of the maintainers of >> ??? extendr, an >> ???? >? ? ?automated >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? generation of bindings project for >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Rust code, for use in R-packages. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> I'm writing to you, as R 4.4.3 was just >> ??? released, and >> ???? >? ? ?there have >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? not been >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> follow-up on an issue important to us. Link >> to the >> ???? >? ? ?issue as >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? discussed on r-devel >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >> ???? > https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html> >> ???? > ???? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024- >> October/083666.html >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? > ???? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024- >> October/083666.html >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html> >> ???? > ???? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024- >> October/083666.html >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html>>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> A community member has provided a suggestion >> to a >> ???? >? ? ?patch here >> ???? >? ? ? >>> https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182 >> ??? <https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182 >> ??? <https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182 >> ??? <https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182 >> ??? <https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182>>>, and we have also >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? attempted to bring it up on >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Bugzilla: >> ???? > https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806 >> ??? <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806 >> ??? <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806 >> ??? <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806 >> ??? <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806>>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> TLDR: Default `R CMD check` uses additional >> ???? >? ? ?CRAN-specific checks >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? for Rust, >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> instead of keeping this behind the --as-cran >> flag. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> I would like to say, that there is a growing >> ??? interest >> ???? >? ? ?in Rust >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? within the R community. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> And generally, Rust becoming a widely adopted >> ??? language >> ???? >? ? ?within >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the Python community (including the scientific part >> ??? of that >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? community). It is time to deal with the >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> pain points with using Rust in R. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Therefore, I would kindly ask that we have a >> ??? dialogue >> ???? >? ? ?on how to >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? remedy the issue above first, and how we may deal >> with >> ???? >? ? ?other issues >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? going forward. There are both challenges embedded >> in R >> ???? >? ? ?itself, and >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the current CRAN policy for Rust is prohibitive. >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Mossa Merhi Reimert >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Postdoctoral Researcher >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> K?benhavns Universitet >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Animal Welfare and Disease Control >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Gr?nneg?rdsvej 8 >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> 1870 Frederiksberg C >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Denmark >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> +45 35324135 >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk> >> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk> >> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk >> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>>><mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk >> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk> >> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk> >> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>>>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>? ? ? ? [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> ______________________________________________ >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> R-devel at r-project.org >> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org >> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>> >> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> >> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>>> >> ???? >? ? ?mailing list >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >? ? ? ?[[alternative HTML version deleted]] >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > ______________________________________________ >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > R-devel at r-project.org >> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org >> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>> >> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> >> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>>> >> ???? >? ? ?mailing list >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? ______________________________________________ >> ???? >? ? ? >>> R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> >> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>> >> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> >> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>>> >> ???? >? ? ?mailing list >> ???? >? ? ? >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>>> >> ???? >? ? ? >>> >> ???? >? ? ? >> >> ???? >? ? ? >> ______________________________________________ >> ???? >? ? ? >> R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> >> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>> >> ??? mailing list >> ???? >? ? ? >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>> >> ???? >? ? ? > >> ???? > >> ???? >? ? ?______________________________________________ >> ???? > R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> >> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>> >> ??? mailing list >> ???? > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>> >> ???? > >> >-- Dr. Benjamin Bolker Professor, Mathematics & Statistics and Biology, McMaster University Director, School of Computational Science and Engineering > E-mail is sent at my convenience; I don't expect replies outside of working hours.
I don't see an easy way, but I think this is an approach: Configure r-lib/actions/check-r-package to not fail on warnings, only on errors, and to upload the result of the rcmdcheck() run. I think it will contain all errors, warnings, and notes. There are options "error-on" which should be set to "error", and "upload-result", which should be set to "true". So this is the easy part. Then examine those results, ignore the warnings you don't care about, and trigger on warnings you do care about. I have never written a github action, but this one sounds possible. Duncan Murdoch On 2025-03-31 1:48 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote:> > > On 2025-03-31 1:04 p.m., Duncan Murdoch wrote: >> On 2025-03-31 12:41 p.m., Josiah Parry wrote: >>> Duncan, the changes to symbols checking was introduced March 22nd see >>> https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18789 <https://bugs.r- >>> project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18789> and https://developer.r- >>> project.org/blosxom.cgi/R-devel/NEWS/2025/03/22#n2025-03-22 <https:// >>> developer.r-project.org/blosxom.cgi/R-devel/ >>> NEWS/2025/03/22#n2025-03-22>. But that is unrelated. >> >> Sorry, I missed that. >> >>> >>> To Tim's comment?the check is a simple grep of the installation?log >>> for "Downloading crates." This could be easily circumvented on CRAN >>> and locally by suppressing stdout/err. But that would be adversarial >>> and I would like to adhere to the intent of the check. >> >> I think Tim was suggesting that you modify your Github action to ignore >> this particular warning.? The warning would still appear, but it >> wouldn't cause a check failure. >> >> Duncan Murdoch > > At a very quick look, I don't see an easy way to do that (but I am > admittedly really bad at doing stuff with Github actions). Maybe longer > term, but it feels like the best way to do this would be to request a > feature in `rcmdcheck` that allowed the user to request ignoring > specific warnings (e.g. specified by regexp?), then expose that feature > in the r-check-package action (or whatever it's called ...) > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 9:23?AM Duncan Murdoch >>> <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> ??? On 2025-03-31 11:50 a.m., Josiah Parry wrote: >>> ???? > Following up with this as I address the new R-devel "Compiled code >>> ???? > should not call entry points which might terminate R" WARNING and >>> ??? this >>> ???? > issue has reared its head again. >>> ???? > >>> ???? > Would a path forward be an environment variable similar >>> ???? > to?_R_CHECK_CRAN_INCOMING_ to skip this check primarily for GitHub >>> ???? > Actions and CI? >>> >>> ??? The "Compiled code should not call entry points which might >>> ??? terminate R" >>> ??? isn't a new warning.? I think the last change to it was made in 2022. >>> >>> ??? Maybe your code, or code in one of the libraries you use, has >>> changed? >>> >>> ??? Duncan Murdoch >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ???? > >>> ???? > Or, alternatively, if this could be a NOTE when the `--as-cran` >>> flag >>> ???? > isn't set but a WARNING when it is? >>> ???? > >>> ???? > Re-vendoring dependencies each time they are changed during the >>> ???? > development lifecycle is quite a bit. However, vendoring once >>> ??? prior to >>> ???? > publishing makes good sense. >>> ???? > >>> ???? > Is there a balance we can strike here to lower development >>> ??? friction but >>> ???? > also ensure the robust package installation requirements when >>> ??? expected? >>> ???? > >>> ???? > Using >>> ???? > >>> ???? > >>> ???? > >>> ???? > >>> ???? > On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 11:42?AM Duncan Murdoch >>> ??? <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> >>> ???? > <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com >>> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>>> wrote: >>> ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ?On 2025-03-02 1:09 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote: >>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? I, like Duncan, am just following along here. I think >>> there >>> ???? >? ? ?might be >>> ???? >? ? ? > two distinct questions which it would be useful to keep >>> ??? distinct: >>> ???? >? ? ? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? * how to silence the rust-check if desired? >>> ???? >? ? ? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?rather than debating whether the rust-check should be >>> ??? always-on, >>> ???? >? ? ? > on-for-CRAN-only, etc., would it provide for useful >>> ??? flexibility >>> ???? >? ? ?to add >>> ???? >? ? ? > an environment variable that enables/disables this >>> ???? >? ? ?functionality?? There >>> ???? >? ? ? > are already 168 of these environment variables, how much >>> would >>> ???? >? ? ?one more >>> ???? >? ? ? > cost? >>> ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ?I may have misunderstood Josiah.? I thought his message said >>> ??? that it is >>> ???? >? ? ?already easy to silence the check, by stopping the code from >>> ??? issuing >>> ???? >? ? ?the >>> ???? >? ? ?message the check is looking for. >>> ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ?Presumably the package shouldn't do that, but if there's an >>> ??? environment >>> ???? >? ? ?variable that can be set to do it, then the repository or >>> ??? user can >>> ???? >? ? ?choose to do it, so there's no need for R to add another >>> ??? environment >>> ???? >? ? ?variable. >>> ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ?BTW, as far as I can see current R-devel doesn't issue an >>> ??? error, it >>> ???? >? ? ?just >>> ???? >? ? ?issues warnings about two issues: >>> ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? ? - the package is downloading crates >>> ???? >? ? ? ? - the rustc compiler doesn't report a version number >>> ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ?Duncan Murdoch >>> ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?I'm not sure how adding an environment variable to >>> ??? allow easier >>> ???? >? ? ? > user/alternate-repository control of the check is >>> "against the >>> ???? >? ? ?spirit of >>> ???? >? ? ? > the check" ... >>> ???? >? ? ? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?All the existing check-regulating env variables ... >>> ???? >? ? ? > >>> ???? >? ? ? > cd src/library/tools/R >>> ???? >? ? ? > grep 'Sys.getenv("_R_CHECK' * | sed -e >>> ??? 's/^.*Sys.getenv(//' | sed -e >>> ???? >? ? ? > 's/[,)].*//' | sort | uniq | wc >>> ???? >? ? ? > >>> ???? >? ? ? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?* should CRAN allow Rust crates to be downloaded? >>> ???? >? ? ? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?This is a much more fundamental policy decision, which >>> ??? I have no >>> ???? >? ? ? > opinion about. >>> ???? >? ? ? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?cheers >>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ? Ben Bolker >>> ???? >? ? ? > >>> ???? >? ? ? > >>> ???? >? ? ? > >>> ???? >? ? ? > >>> ???? >? ? ? > On 2025-03-02 12:21 p.m., Duncan Murdoch wrote: >>> ???? >? ? ? >> On 2025-03-02 11:03 a.m., Josiah Parry wrote: >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> Well this has surely veered off course! >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> As the one who filed the BugZilla report, I'd like to >>> ??? redirect the >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> conversation and provide further context. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> The question should?be /"how do we get a dialogue >>> ??? started on this >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> bugzilla issue before the next minor / >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> /release of R?"/ >>> ???? >? ? ? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >> Isn't this exactly that dialogue? >>> ???? >? ? ? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> The current check for Rust-based R package's downloading >>> ??? external >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> dependencies works by looking at >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> the output logs for the presence of? "Downloading >>> ??? crates." This >>> ???? >? ? ?can is >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> an entirely fine requirement for >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> CRAN?however, due to the fact that it is an error, >>> packages >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> distributed through other repositories >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> fail the R-CMD check. >>> ???? >? ? ? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >> I think you misunderstood me.? CRAN shares the view I >>> ??? gave that you >>> ???? >? ? ? >> should be able to run old code to reproduce old >>> results, but >>> ???? >? ? ?they aren't >>> ???? >? ? ? >> the only ones.? That's always been a goal of R. >>> ???? >? ? ? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> Folks who use R-universe or PPM or some mysterious third >>> ??? thing >>> ???? >? ? ?may not >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> share the same philosophy as >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> CRAN and prefer the convenience of fetching the >>> ??? dependencies at >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> compile time and not vendoring them. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> An alternative would be for the check to be optionally >>> ??? skipped or >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> become a NOTE when the CRAN >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> flag is not set and an ERROR otherwise. Skipping this >>> CRAN >>> ???? >? ? ?check is as >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> easy as adding `--quiet` >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> or setting an environment variable?but that is against >>> the >>> ???? >? ? ?spirit of >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> the check. >>> ???? >? ? ? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >> If it is that easy to skip the check, then I really >>> don't see >>> ???? >? ? ?the issue. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>? ??Just ask the repository where you want to put your >>> ??? package to >>> ???? >? ? ?put that >>> ???? >? ? ? >> option or environment variable in place, and there's no >>> ??? longer a >>> ???? >? ? ?problem. >>> ???? >? ? ? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >> Duncan Murdoch >>> ???? >? ? ? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> Ideally, the check can remain, but scoped appropriately. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 6:49?AM Duncan Murdoch >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com >>> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com >>> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>> >>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com >>> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com >>> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>>>> >>> ???? >? ? ?wrote: >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? You seem to be taking a confontational tone, which >>> ??? isn't >>> ???? >? ? ?likely to >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? encourage a reasonable dialogue. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? I've looked for other messages on this, and didn't >>> ??? see any >>> ???? >? ? ?besides >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> this >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? one explaining why including check_rust() in the >>> ??? checks is >>> ???? >? ? ?a problem. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? The problem you talk about here is that it >>> encourages >>> ???? >? ? ?vendoring, >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> which >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? makes it harder for package authors to count >>> downloads. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? To be honest, that doesn't seem like a very serious >>> ???? >? ? ?problem.? I >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> assume >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the packages ("crates") we are talking about are >>> open >>> ???? >? ? ?source, so >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? this is >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? entirely in the spirit of how they are allowed to be >>> ???? >? ? ?distributed. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? If they aren't open source, then users of those >>> ??? packages >>> ???? >? ? ?should be >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? warned about that, and a check failure is a good >>> ??? way to do >>> ???? >? ? ?that. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? So you need to explain why it is important to be >>> ??? able to >>> ???? >? ? ?download and >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? install software and not be warned about it. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? I am not in R Core or CRAN, but I can suggest why >>> it is >>> ???? >? ? ?better to >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? include source in the package:? it makes the use of >>> ??? that >>> ???? >? ? ?package more >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? reliable in the future.? It's not uncommon to run >>> an R >>> ???? >? ? ?computation >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> that >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? was written a few years ago.? Sometimes libraries >>> or R >>> ???? >? ? ?have changed, >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? and >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? a user will need to go back to a previous version to >>> ???? >? ? ?reproduce the >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? calculation.? Being able to able to rebuild a >>> ??? system as it >>> ???? >? ? ?would have >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? been back then is important. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? Is that possible if the package needs to make a >>> ??? download?? The >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> download >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? site that worked a few years ago may no longer >>> ??? exist.? If >>> ???? >? ? ?the site >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? exists, the code versions there may be different. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? Those are some of the issues that Simon was >>> ??? alluding to. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? Duncan Murdoch >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? On 2025-03-02 5:45 a.m., Mossa Merhi Reimert via >>> ??? R-devel >>> ???? >? ? ?wrote: >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Dear Simon Urbanek, >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > There has been very little engagement with the >>> ??? issue I >>> ???? >? ? ?referred >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? to. If it was decided that this ?check? ought to be >>> ??? part >>> ???? >? ? ?of the >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? default checks for R, >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > then that could have been written to us. Either >>> ??? on the >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> bugs.r-project.org <http://bugs.r-project.org> >>> ??? <http://bugs.r-project.org <http://bugs.r-project.org>> >>> ???? >? ? ?<http://bugs.r-project.org <http://bugs.r-project.org> >>> ??? <http://bugs.r-project.org <http://bugs.r-project.org>>> or the >>> proposed >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? patch. Before we talk about anything else, >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > it does seem very strange that we cannot get a >>> ??? reasonable >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? dialogue going. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > I would like to say that the R/Rust community >>> ??? has grown >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? substantially. From my end, there are 3 bindings >>> ??? project, >>> ???? >? ? ?extendr, >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? savvy, and roxido. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Then, there are now many rust-based packages on >>> ??? CRAN, >>> ???? >? ? ?see this >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? most recent compiled list >>> ???? > https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs >>> ??? <https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs >>> ??? <https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs >>> ??? <https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs >>> ??? <https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs>>>. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > There is also proof-of-concept >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust >>> ??? <https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust >>> ??? <https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust >>> ??? <https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust >>> ??? <https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust>>> that integrates `cargo`, >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? rust?s official build system, with R?s package >>> ??? build system, >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > and https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc >>> ??? <https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc >>> ??? <https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc >>> ??? <https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc >>> ??? <https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc>>>, which showcases how Rust >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? compiler could be directly linked with R?s package >>> ??? system. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >? ?Let me say, that the current R CMD check is >>> ??? not meant >>> ???? >? ? ?to be >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? ?helpful?. When a package is built, `cargo` tells >>> ??? the user >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? ?Downloading crates?. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Thus, this information is already conveyed to >>> ??? the user. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Personally, I do wish we could debate this >>> ??? requirement >>> ???? >? ? ?further. I >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? do not believe that having R-packages on CRAN >>> ??? vendor rust >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> dependencies >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > as a good policy. Download statistics is a >>> success >>> ???? >? ? ?metric of a >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? given r-package and rust packages. By insisting on >>> ???? >? ? ?vendoring, and >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> thus >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > side-stepping `cargo` / crates.io >>> ??? <http://crates.io> <http://crates.io <http://crates.io>> >>> ???? >? ? ?<http://crates.io <http://crates.io> <http://crates.io >>> ??? <http://crates.io>>>, we are >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? robbing upstream authors of their download-numbers. >>> ??? I do >>> ???? >? ? ?not think >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? such policy is honourable. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > While C/C++ do not have official package >>> ??? repositories, >>> ???? >? ? ?it could >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? be thought of, as fair game, to have CRAN act as a >>> ??? pseudo >>> ???? >? ? ?package >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? manager for C/C++ libraries. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > I?m not going to argue for or against this part. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > There are many objections from the CRAN side to >>> ??? all things >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? related to Rust. I don?t want to open multiple >>> ??? topics in >>> ???? >? ? ?the same >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? thread. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > But there is plenty to bring up. And I had >>> hoped we >>> ???? >? ? ?could talk >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? this little issue through, before embarking on a >>> larger >>> ???? >? ? ?discussion. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > I do not appreciate the ?random demands? >>> comment, as >>> ???? >? ? ?this is not >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? a demand, nor is it random. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > I have inquired my end of the community for >>> ??? suggestions >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > to compile a larger proposal, but then I was >>> afraid >>> ???? >? ? ?that this >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? would be perceived as a big, bulky demand. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Rust is not C/C++/Java, and the support for Rust >>> ??? cannot >>> ???? >? ? ?look like >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the support for these languages. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > From: Simon Urbanek <simon.urbanek at R-project.org> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Date: Sunday, 2 March 2025 at 00.39 >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > To: Mossa Merhi Reimert <mossa at sund.ku.dk >>> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk> >>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk> >>> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>>>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Cc: r-devel at r-project.org >>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> >>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>> >>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> >>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <r-devel at r-project.org >>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org >>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>> >>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> >>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>>>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Subject: Re: [Rd] R CMD check and CRAN's Rust >>> policy >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > [Du f?r ikke ofte mails fra >>> ??? simon.urbanek at r-project.org <mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org> >>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org >>> ??? <mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org >>> ??? <mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org> >>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org >>> ??? <mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org>>>. F? mere at vide om, hvorfor >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? dette er vigtigt, p? >>> ???? > https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification >>> ??? <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification >>> ??? <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification >>> ??? <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification >>> ??? <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>>> ] >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Mossa, >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > the issue you cite is lacking any pertinent >>> ??? information >>> ???? >? ? ?and it's >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? not even clear why it should be an issue. The >>> check is >>> ???? >? ? ?perfectly >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? justified, it just reports whether a package >>> using rust >>> ???? >? ? ?declares >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? this correctly and where it downloads 3rd party >>> ??? content - >>> ???? >? ? ?something >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? that is important to R users in general and not >>> ??? related to >>> ???? >? ? ?CRAN. I >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? don't see how any of this is "prohibitive" it just >>> ??? calls >>> ???? >? ? ?out what >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the package is already doing. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > As discussed before, my hope was that the "R"ust >>> ???? >? ? ?community will >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? mature enough to work on proper support. It is not >>> ??? clear >>> ???? >? ? ?that it >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? happened yet, but once it does it would make sense >>> ??? to talk >>> ???? >? ? ?about >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? support just as we have for C, C++ and Java, so >>> ??? certainly that >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? should be the right discussion. However, it will >>> ??? have to >>> ???? >? ? ?start with >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? some thinking and a proposal on how the associated >>> ??? issues >>> ???? >? ? ?(compiler >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? support, versioning, dependency sources etc.) are >>> to be >>> ???? >? ? ?addressed, >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? as opposed to making random demands. All this has >>> ??? nothing >>> ???? >? ? ?to do with >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? CRAN so the issue you mention seems irrelevant to >>> the >>> ???? >? ? ?progress. Also >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? I'd like to know what are the "challenges >>> embedded in R >>> ???? >? ? ?itself". >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Cheers, >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Simon >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> On Mar 2, 2025, at 8:45 AM, Mossa Merhi >>> Reimert via >>> ???? >? ? ?R-devel >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <r-devel at r-project.org >>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org >>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>> >>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> >>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>>>> >>> wrote: >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Hello everyone! >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> I'm Mossa, I'm one of the maintainers of >>> ??? extendr, an >>> ???? >? ? ?automated >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? generation of bindings project for >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Rust code, for use in R-packages. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> I'm writing to you, as R 4.4.3 was just >>> ??? released, and >>> ???? >? ? ?there have >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? not been >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> follow-up on an issue important to us. Link >>> to the >>> ???? >? ? ?issue as >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? discussed on r-devel >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>> ???? > https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html> >>> ???? > ???? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024- >>> October/083666.html >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? > ???? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024- >>> October/083666.html >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html> >>> ???? > ???? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024- >>> October/083666.html >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html>>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> A community member has provided a suggestion >>> to a >>> ???? >? ? ?patch here >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182 >>> ??? <https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182 >>> ??? <https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182 >>> ??? <https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182 >>> ??? <https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182>>>, and we have also >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? attempted to bring it up on >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Bugzilla: >>> ???? > https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806 >>> ??? <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806 >>> ??? <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806 >>> ??? <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806 >>> ??? <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806>>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> TLDR: Default `R CMD check` uses additional >>> ???? >? ? ?CRAN-specific checks >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? for Rust, >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> instead of keeping this behind the --as-cran >>> flag. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> I would like to say, that there is a growing >>> ??? interest >>> ???? >? ? ?in Rust >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? within the R community. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> And generally, Rust becoming a widely adopted >>> ??? language >>> ???? >? ? ?within >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the Python community (including the scientific part >>> ??? of that >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? community). It is time to deal with the >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> pain points with using Rust in R. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Therefore, I would kindly ask that we have a >>> ??? dialogue >>> ???? >? ? ?on how to >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? remedy the issue above first, and how we may deal >>> with >>> ???? >? ? ?other issues >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? going forward. There are both challenges embedded >>> in R >>> ???? >? ? ?itself, and >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the current CRAN policy for Rust is prohibitive. >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Mossa Merhi Reimert >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Postdoctoral Researcher >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> K?benhavns Universitet >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Animal Welfare and Disease Control >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Gr?nneg?rdsvej 8 >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> 1870 Frederiksberg C >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Denmark >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> +45 35324135 >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk> >>> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk> >>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk >>> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>>><mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk >>> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk> >>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk> >>> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>>>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>? ? ? ? [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> ______________________________________________ >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> R-devel at r-project.org >>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org >>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>> >>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> >>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>>> >>> ???? >? ? ?mailing list >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >? ? ? ?[[alternative HTML version deleted]] >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > ______________________________________________ >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > R-devel at r-project.org >>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org >>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>> >>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> >>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>>> >>> ???? >? ? ?mailing list >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? ______________________________________________ >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> >>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>> >>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> >>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>>> >>> ???? >? ? ?mailing list >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>> ???? >? ? ? >> >>> ???? >? ? ? >> ______________________________________________ >>> ???? >? ? ? >> R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> >>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>> >>> ??? mailing list >>> ???? >? ? ? >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>> >>> ???? >? ? ? > >>> ???? > >>> ???? >? ? ?______________________________________________ >>> ???? > R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> >>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>> >>> ??? mailing list >>> ???? > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>> >>> ???? > >>> >> >
Just for fun I forked rcmdcheck and added arguments to it to allow
particular messages to be changed in severity.
For example, if the WARNING message says something which matches the
regexp "Compiled code should not call entry points which might terminate
R" you could run
rcmdcheck::rcmdcheck(".", demote = list(warnings = "Compiled
code
should not call entry points which might terminate R"))
and the warning will be counted as a NOTE. The decision about whether
to signal an error from the run will be based on the value after demotion.
I haven't done anything with the Github action, but users can play
with this fork if they like. It can be installed using
remotes::install_github("dmurdoch/rcmdcheck")
You can install custom builds in a Github action fairly easily, but it's
hard to add a new argument to a call deep within the action script. A
simpler approach would be to fork my fork and set the default value for
"demote" to whatever you want, then install your own fork during the
Github action.
Comments are welcome.
Duncan Murdoch
On 2025-03-31 1:48 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote:>
>
> On 2025-03-31 1:04 p.m., Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> On 2025-03-31 12:41 p.m., Josiah Parry wrote:
>>> Duncan, the changes to symbols checking was introduced March 22nd
see
>>> https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18789
<https://bugs.r-
>>> project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18789> and https://developer.r-
>>> project.org/blosxom.cgi/R-devel/NEWS/2025/03/22#n2025-03-22
<https://
>>> developer.r-project.org/blosxom.cgi/R-devel/
>>> NEWS/2025/03/22#n2025-03-22>. But that is unrelated.
>>
>> Sorry, I missed that.
>>
>>>
>>> To Tim's comment?the check is a simple grep of the
installation?log
>>> for "Downloading crates." This could be easily
circumvented on CRAN
>>> and locally by suppressing stdout/err. But that would be
adversarial
>>> and I would like to adhere to the intent of the check.
>>
>> I think Tim was suggesting that you modify your Github action to ignore
>> this particular warning.? The warning would still appear, but it
>> wouldn't cause a check failure.
>>
>> Duncan Murdoch
>
> At a very quick look, I don't see an easy way to do that (but I am
> admittedly really bad at doing stuff with Github actions). Maybe longer
> term, but it feels like the best way to do this would be to request a
> feature in `rcmdcheck` that allowed the user to request ignoring
> specific warnings (e.g. specified by regexp?), then expose that feature
> in the r-check-package action (or whatever it's called ...)
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 9:23?AM Duncan Murdoch
>>> <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com <mailto:murdoch.duncan at
gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ??? On 2025-03-31 11:50 a.m., Josiah Parry wrote:
>>> ???? > Following up with this as I address the new R-devel
"Compiled code
>>> ???? > should not call entry points which might terminate
R" WARNING and
>>> ??? this
>>> ???? > issue has reared its head again.
>>> ???? >
>>> ???? > Would a path forward be an environment variable similar
>>> ???? > to?_R_CHECK_CRAN_INCOMING_ to skip this check primarily
for GitHub
>>> ???? > Actions and CI?
>>>
>>> ??? The "Compiled code should not call entry points which
might
>>> ??? terminate R"
>>> ??? isn't a new warning.? I think the last change to it was
made in 2022.
>>>
>>> ??? Maybe your code, or code in one of the libraries you use, has
>>> changed?
>>>
>>> ??? Duncan Murdoch
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ???? >
>>> ???? > Or, alternatively, if this could be a NOTE when the
`--as-cran`
>>> flag
>>> ???? > isn't set but a WARNING when it is?
>>> ???? >
>>> ???? > Re-vendoring dependencies each time they are changed
during the
>>> ???? > development lifecycle is quite a bit. However, vendoring
once
>>> ??? prior to
>>> ???? > publishing makes good sense.
>>> ???? >
>>> ???? > Is there a balance we can strike here to lower
development
>>> ??? friction but
>>> ???? > also ensure the robust package installation requirements
when
>>> ??? expected?
>>> ???? >
>>> ???? > Using
>>> ???? >
>>> ???? >
>>> ???? >
>>> ???? >
>>> ???? > On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 11:42?AM Duncan Murdoch
>>> ??? <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com <mailto:murdoch.duncan at
gmail.com>
>>> ???? > <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com
>>> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>> ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ?On 2025-03-02 1:09 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote:
>>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? I, like Duncan, am just following along
here. I think
>>> there
>>> ???? >? ? ?might be
>>> ???? >? ? ? > two distinct questions which it would be
useful to keep
>>> ??? distinct:
>>> ???? >? ? ? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? * how to silence the rust-check if desired?
>>> ???? >? ? ? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?rather than debating whether the
rust-check should be
>>> ??? always-on,
>>> ???? >? ? ? > on-for-CRAN-only, etc., would it provide for
useful
>>> ??? flexibility
>>> ???? >? ? ?to add
>>> ???? >? ? ? > an environment variable that enables/disables
this
>>> ???? >? ? ?functionality?? There
>>> ???? >? ? ? > are already 168 of these environment
variables, how much
>>> would
>>> ???? >? ? ?one more
>>> ???? >? ? ? > cost?
>>> ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ?I may have misunderstood Josiah.? I thought his
message said
>>> ??? that it is
>>> ???? >? ? ?already easy to silence the check, by stopping the
code from
>>> ??? issuing
>>> ???? >? ? ?the
>>> ???? >? ? ?message the check is looking for.
>>> ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ?Presumably the package shouldn't do that, but if
there's an
>>> ??? environment
>>> ???? >? ? ?variable that can be set to do it, then the
repository or
>>> ??? user can
>>> ???? >? ? ?choose to do it, so there's no need for R to add
another
>>> ??? environment
>>> ???? >? ? ?variable.
>>> ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ?BTW, as far as I can see current R-devel doesn't
issue an
>>> ??? error, it
>>> ???? >? ? ?just
>>> ???? >? ? ?issues warnings about two issues:
>>> ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? ? - the package is downloading crates
>>> ???? >? ? ? ? - the rustc compiler doesn't report a version
number
>>> ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ?Duncan Murdoch
>>> ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?I'm not sure how adding an environment
variable to
>>> ??? allow easier
>>> ???? >? ? ? > user/alternate-repository control of the check
is
>>> "against the
>>> ???? >? ? ?spirit of
>>> ???? >? ? ? > the check" ...
>>> ???? >? ? ? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?All the existing check-regulating env
variables ...
>>> ???? >? ? ? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? > cd src/library/tools/R
>>> ???? >? ? ? > grep 'Sys.getenv("_R_CHECK' * |
sed -e
>>> ??? 's/^.*Sys.getenv(//' | sed -e
>>> ???? >? ? ? > 's/[,)].*//' | sort | uniq | wc
>>> ???? >? ? ? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?* should CRAN allow Rust crates to be
downloaded?
>>> ???? >? ? ? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?This is a much more fundamental policy
decision, which
>>> ??? I have no
>>> ???? >? ? ? > opinion about.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?cheers
>>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ? Ben Bolker
>>> ???? >? ? ? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? > On 2025-03-02 12:21 p.m., Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
>>> ???? >? ? ? >> On 2025-03-02 11:03 a.m., Josiah Parry
wrote:
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> Well this has surely veered off
course!
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> As the one who filed the BugZilla
report, I'd like to
>>> ??? redirect the
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> conversation and provide further
context.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> The question should?be /"how do
we get a dialogue
>>> ??? started on this
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> bugzilla issue before the next minor /
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> /release of R?"/
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >> Isn't this exactly that dialogue?
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> The current check for Rust-based R
package's downloading
>>> ??? external
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> dependencies works by looking at
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> the output logs for the presence of?
"Downloading
>>> ??? crates." This
>>> ???? >? ? ?can is
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> an entirely fine requirement for
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> CRAN?however, due to the fact that it
is an error,
>>> packages
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> distributed through other repositories
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> fail the R-CMD check.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >> I think you misunderstood me.? CRAN shares
the view I
>>> ??? gave that you
>>> ???? >? ? ? >> should be able to run old code to
reproduce old
>>> results, but
>>> ???? >? ? ?they aren't
>>> ???? >? ? ? >> the only ones.? That's always been a
goal of R.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> Folks who use R-universe or PPM or
some mysterious third
>>> ??? thing
>>> ???? >? ? ?may not
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> share the same philosophy as
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> CRAN and prefer the convenience of
fetching the
>>> ??? dependencies at
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> compile time and not vendoring them.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> An alternative would be for the check
to be optionally
>>> ??? skipped or
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> become a NOTE when the CRAN
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> flag is not set and an ERROR
otherwise. Skipping this
>>> CRAN
>>> ???? >? ? ?check is as
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> easy as adding `--quiet`
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> or setting an environment variable?but
that is against
>>> the
>>> ???? >? ? ?spirit of
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> the check.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >> If it is that easy to skip the check, then
I really
>>> don't see
>>> ???? >? ? ?the issue.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>? ??Just ask the repository where you want
to put your
>>> ??? package to
>>> ???? >? ? ?put that
>>> ???? >? ? ? >> option or environment variable in place,
and there's no
>>> ??? longer a
>>> ???? >? ? ?problem.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >> Duncan Murdoch
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> Ideally, the check can remain, but
scoped appropriately.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 6:49?AM Duncan
Murdoch
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com
>>> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>
<mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com
>>> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com
>>> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>
<mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com
>>> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>>>>
>>> ???? >? ? ?wrote:
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? You seem to be taking a
confontational tone, which
>>> ??? isn't
>>> ???? >? ? ?likely to
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? encourage a reasonable dialogue.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? I've looked for other
messages on this, and didn't
>>> ??? see any
>>> ???? >? ? ?besides
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> this
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? one explaining why including
check_rust() in the
>>> ??? checks is
>>> ???? >? ? ?a problem.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? The problem you talk about here
is that it
>>> encourages
>>> ???? >? ? ?vendoring,
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> which
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? makes it harder for package
authors to count
>>> downloads.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? To be honest, that doesn't
seem like a very serious
>>> ???? >? ? ?problem.? I
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> assume
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the packages ("crates")
we are talking about are
>>> open
>>> ???? >? ? ?source, so
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? this is
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? entirely in the spirit of how
they are allowed to be
>>> ???? >? ? ?distributed.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? If they aren't open source,
then users of those
>>> ??? packages
>>> ???? >? ? ?should be
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? warned about that, and a check
failure is a good
>>> ??? way to do
>>> ???? >? ? ?that.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? So you need to explain why it is
important to be
>>> ??? able to
>>> ???? >? ? ?download and
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? install software and not be
warned about it.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? I am not in R Core or CRAN, but I
can suggest why
>>> it is
>>> ???? >? ? ?better to
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? include source in the package:?
it makes the use of
>>> ??? that
>>> ???? >? ? ?package more
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? reliable in the future.? It's
not uncommon to run
>>> an R
>>> ???? >? ? ?computation
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> that
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? was written a few years ago.?
Sometimes libraries
>>> or R
>>> ???? >? ? ?have changed,
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? and
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? a user will need to go back to a
previous version to
>>> ???? >? ? ?reproduce the
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? calculation.? Being able to able
to rebuild a
>>> ??? system as it
>>> ???? >? ? ?would have
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? been back then is important.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? Is that possible if the package
needs to make a
>>> ??? download?? The
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> download
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? site that worked a few years ago
may no longer
>>> ??? exist.? If
>>> ???? >? ? ?the site
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? exists, the code versions there
may be different.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? Those are some of the issues that
Simon was
>>> ??? alluding to.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? Duncan Murdoch
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? On 2025-03-02 5:45 a.m., Mossa
Merhi Reimert via
>>> ??? R-devel
>>> ???? >? ? ?wrote:
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Dear Simon Urbanek,
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > There has been very little
engagement with the
>>> ??? issue I
>>> ???? >? ? ?referred
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? to. If it was decided that this
?check? ought to be
>>> ??? part
>>> ???? >? ? ?of the
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? default checks for R,
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > then that could have been
written to us. Either
>>> ??? on the
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> bugs.r-project.org
<http://bugs.r-project.org>
>>> ??? <http://bugs.r-project.org
<http://bugs.r-project.org>>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<http://bugs.r-project.org
<http://bugs.r-project.org>
>>> ??? <http://bugs.r-project.org
<http://bugs.r-project.org>>> or the
>>> proposed
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? patch. Before we talk about
anything else,
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > it does seem very strange
that we cannot get a
>>> ??? reasonable
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? dialogue going.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > I would like to say that
the R/Rust community
>>> ??? has grown
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? substantially. From my end, there
are 3 bindings
>>> ??? project,
>>> ???? >? ? ?extendr,
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? savvy, and roxido.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Then, there are now many
rust-based packages on
>>> ??? CRAN,
>>> ???? >? ? ?see this
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? most recent compiled list
>>> ???? > https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs
>>> ??? <https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs
>>> ??? <https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???
<https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs
>>> ??? <https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs
>>> ??? <https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs>>>.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > There is also
proof-of-concept
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust
>>> ??? <https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust
>>> ??? <https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???
<https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust
>>> ??? <https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust
>>> ??? <https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust>>> that
integrates `cargo`,
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? rust?s official build system,
with R?s package
>>> ??? build system,
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > and
https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc
>>> ??? <https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc
>>> ??? <https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???
<https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc
>>> ??? <https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc
>>> ??? <https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc>>>, which
showcases how Rust
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? compiler could be directly linked
with R?s package
>>> ??? system.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >? ?Let me say, that the
current R CMD check is
>>> ??? not meant
>>> ???? >? ? ?to be
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? ?helpful?. When a package is
built, `cargo` tells
>>> ??? the user
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? ?Downloading crates?.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Thus, this information is
already conveyed to
>>> ??? the user.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Personally, I do wish we
could debate this
>>> ??? requirement
>>> ???? >? ? ?further. I
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? do not believe that having
R-packages on CRAN
>>> ??? vendor rust
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> dependencies
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > as a good policy. Download
statistics is a
>>> success
>>> ???? >? ? ?metric of a
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? given r-package and rust
packages. By insisting on
>>> ???? >? ? ?vendoring, and
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> thus
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > side-stepping `cargo` /
crates.io
>>> ??? <http://crates.io> <http://crates.io
<http://crates.io>>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<http://crates.io <http://crates.io>
<http://crates.io
>>> ??? <http://crates.io>>>, we are
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? robbing upstream authors of their
download-numbers.
>>> ??? I do
>>> ???? >? ? ?not think
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? such policy is honourable.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > While C/C++ do not have
official package
>>> ??? repositories,
>>> ???? >? ? ?it could
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? be thought of, as fair game, to
have CRAN act as a
>>> ??? pseudo
>>> ???? >? ? ?package
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? manager for C/C++ libraries.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > I?m not going to argue for
or against this part.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > There are many objections
from the CRAN side to
>>> ??? all things
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? related to Rust. I don?t want to
open multiple
>>> ??? topics in
>>> ???? >? ? ?the same
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? thread.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > But there is plenty to
bring up. And I had
>>> hoped we
>>> ???? >? ? ?could talk
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? this little issue through, before
embarking on a
>>> larger
>>> ???? >? ? ?discussion.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > I do not appreciate the
?random demands?
>>> comment, as
>>> ???? >? ? ?this is not
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? a demand, nor is it random.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > I have inquired my end of
the community for
>>> ??? suggestions
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > to compile a larger
proposal, but then I was
>>> afraid
>>> ???? >? ? ?that this
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? would be perceived as a big,
bulky demand.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Rust is not C/C++/Java, and
the support for Rust
>>> ??? cannot
>>> ???? >? ? ?look like
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the support for these languages.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > From: Simon Urbanek
<simon.urbanek at R-project.org>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Date: Sunday, 2 March 2025
at 00.39
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > To: Mossa Merhi Reimert
<mossa at sund.ku.dk
>>> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at
sund.ku.dk>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk
<mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>
>>> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at
sund.ku.dk>>>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Cc: r-devel at
r-project.org
>>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org
<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>>
>>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at
r-project.org>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org
<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <r-devel at r-project.org
>>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> <mailto:r-devel at
r-project.org
>>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org
<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>
>>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at
r-project.org>>>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Subject: Re: [Rd] R CMD
check and CRAN's Rust
>>> policy
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > [Du f?r ikke ofte mails fra
>>> ??? simon.urbanek at r-project.org <mailto:simon.urbanek at
r-project.org>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org
>>> ??? <mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <mailto:simon.urbanek at
r-project.org
>>> ??? <mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org
>>> ??? <mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org>>>. F? mere
at vide om, hvorfor
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? dette er vigtigt, p?
>>> ???? > https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification
>>> ??? <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification
>>> ??? <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???
<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification
>>> ??? <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification
>>> ??? <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>>>
]
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Mossa,
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > the issue you cite is
lacking any pertinent
>>> ??? information
>>> ???? >? ? ?and it's
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? not even clear why it should be
an issue. The
>>> check is
>>> ???? >? ? ?perfectly
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? justified, it just reports
whether a package
>>> using rust
>>> ???? >? ? ?declares
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? this correctly and where it
downloads 3rd party
>>> ??? content -
>>> ???? >? ? ?something
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? that is important to R users in
general and not
>>> ??? related to
>>> ???? >? ? ?CRAN. I
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? don't see how any of this is
"prohibitive" it just
>>> ??? calls
>>> ???? >? ? ?out what
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the package is already doing.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > As discussed before, my
hope was that the "R"ust
>>> ???? >? ? ?community will
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? mature enough to work on proper
support. It is not
>>> ??? clear
>>> ???? >? ? ?that it
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? happened yet, but once it does it
would make sense
>>> ??? to talk
>>> ???? >? ? ?about
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? support just as we have for C,
C++ and Java, so
>>> ??? certainly that
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? should be the right discussion.
However, it will
>>> ??? have to
>>> ???? >? ? ?start with
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? some thinking and a proposal on
how the associated
>>> ??? issues
>>> ???? >? ? ?(compiler
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? support, versioning, dependency
sources etc.) are
>>> to be
>>> ???? >? ? ?addressed,
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? as opposed to making random
demands. All this has
>>> ??? nothing
>>> ???? >? ? ?to do with
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? CRAN so the issue you mention
seems irrelevant to
>>> the
>>> ???? >? ? ?progress. Also
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? I'd like to know what are the
"challenges
>>> embedded in R
>>> ???? >? ? ?itself".
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Cheers,
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Simon
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> On Mar 2, 2025, at 8:45
AM, Mossa Merhi
>>> Reimert via
>>> ???? >? ? ?R-devel
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <r-devel at r-project.org
>>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> <mailto:r-devel at
r-project.org
>>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org
<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>
>>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at
r-project.org>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Hello everyone!
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> I'm Mossa, I'm
one of the maintainers of
>>> ??? extendr, an
>>> ???? >? ? ?automated
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? generation of bindings project
for
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Rust code, for use in
R-packages.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> I'm writing to you,
as R 4.4.3 was just
>>> ??? released, and
>>> ???? >? ? ?there have
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? not been
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> follow-up on an issue
important to us. Link
>>> to the
>>> ???? >? ? ?issue as
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? discussed on r-devel
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>
>>> ???? >
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html
>>> ???
<https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html>
>>> ???? > ???? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-
>>> October/083666.html
>>> ???
<https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? > ???? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-
>>> October/083666.html
>>> ???
<https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html>
>>> ???? > ???? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-
>>> October/083666.html
>>> ???
<https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html>>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> A community member has
provided a suggestion
>>> to a
>>> ???? >? ? ?patch here
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182
>>> ??? <https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182
>>> ??? <https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???
<https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182
>>> ??? <https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182
>>> ??? <https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182>>>, and
we have also
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? attempted to bring it up on
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Bugzilla:
>>> ???? > https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806
>>> ??? <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806
>>> ??? <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???
<https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806
>>> ??? <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806
>>> ???
<https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806>>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> TLDR: Default `R CMD
check` uses additional
>>> ???? >? ? ?CRAN-specific checks
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? for Rust,
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> instead of keeping this
behind the --as-cran
>>> flag.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> I would like to say,
that there is a growing
>>> ??? interest
>>> ???? >? ? ?in Rust
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? within the R community.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> And generally, Rust
becoming a widely adopted
>>> ??? language
>>> ???? >? ? ?within
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the Python community (including
the scientific part
>>> ??? of that
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? community). It is time to deal
with the
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> pain points with using
Rust in R.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Therefore, I would
kindly ask that we have a
>>> ??? dialogue
>>> ???? >? ? ?on how to
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? remedy the issue above first, and
how we may deal
>>> with
>>> ???? >? ? ?other issues
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? going forward. There are both
challenges embedded
>>> in R
>>> ???? >? ? ?itself, and
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the current CRAN policy for Rust
is prohibitive.
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Mossa Merhi Reimert
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Postdoctoral Researcher
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> K?benhavns Universitet
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Department of
Veterinary and Animal Sciences
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Animal Welfare and
Disease Control
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Gr?nneg?rdsvej 8
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> 1870 Frederiksberg C
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Denmark
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> +45 35324135
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> mossa at sund.ku.dk
<mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>
>>> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at
sund.ku.dk>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk
<mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk
>>> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>>><mailto:mossa at
sund.ku.dk
>>> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at
sund.ku.dk>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk
<mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>
>>> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at
sund.ku.dk>>>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>? ? ? ? [[alternative
HTML version deleted]]
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>
______________________________________________
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> R-devel at
r-project.org
>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> <mailto:R-devel at
r-project.org
>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:R-devel at r-project.org
<mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>
>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at
r-project.org>>>
>>> ???? >? ? ?mailing list
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???
<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >? ? ? ?[[alternative HTML
version deleted]]
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
______________________________________________
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > R-devel at r-project.org
>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> <mailto:R-devel at
r-project.org
>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:R-devel at r-project.org
<mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>
>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at
r-project.org>>>
>>> ???? >? ? ?mailing list
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???
<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???
______________________________________________
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> R-devel at r-project.org
<mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>
>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at
r-project.org>>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:R-devel at r-project.org
<mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>
>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at
r-project.org>>>
>>> ???? >? ? ?mailing list
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???
<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>
______________________________________________
>>> ???? >? ? ? >> R-devel at r-project.org
<mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>
>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at
r-project.org>>
>>> ??? mailing list
>>> ???? >? ? ? >>
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>>
>>> ???? >? ? ? >
>>> ???? >
>>> ???? >? ? ?______________________________________________
>>> ???? > R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at
r-project.org>
>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at
r-project.org>>
>>> ??? mailing list
>>> ???? > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>
>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>>
>>> ???? >
>>>
>>
>
It is also pretty straightforward to roll your own actions and / or use different, simpler YAML setups. I still use a 'rolled forward and maintained by me now version' of the shell script many of us started with at Travis CI. It works, is portable across multiple CI backend, and is still a shell script and easy to customize. I eventually added basic actions that fetch it / do the setup. Would be easy to deploy a modified rcmdcheck with it too. It only covers linux (where it works rather well with r2u for speed, ease of use and reliability) and macOS, both arm64 and x86_64. See [1] if interested. Dirk [1] https://eddelbuettel.github.io/r-ci/ -- dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org
On 2025-03-31 4:50 p.m., Duncan Murdoch wrote:> Just for fun I forked rcmdcheck and added arguments to it to allow > particular messages to be changed in severity. > > For example, if the WARNING message says something which matches the > regexp "Compiled code should not call entry points which might terminate > R" you could run > > rcmdcheck::rcmdcheck(".", demote = list(warnings = "Compiled code > should not call entry points which might terminate R")) > > and the warning will be counted as a NOTE. The decision about whether > to signal an error from the run will be based on the value after demotion. > > I haven't done anything with the Github action, but users can play > with this fork if they like. It can be installed using > > remotes::install_github("dmurdoch/rcmdcheck")Sorry, that should be remotes::install_github("dmurdoch/rcmdcheck at demotions") Duncan Murdoch> > You can install custom builds in a Github action fairly easily, but it's > hard to add a new argument to a call deep within the action script. A > simpler approach would be to fork my fork and set the default value for > "demote" to whatever you want, then install your own fork during the > Github action. > > Comments are welcome. > > Duncan Murdoch > > > On 2025-03-31 1:48 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote: >> >> >> On 2025-03-31 1:04 p.m., Duncan Murdoch wrote: >>> On 2025-03-31 12:41 p.m., Josiah Parry wrote: >>>> Duncan, the changes to symbols checking was introduced March 22nd see >>>> https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18789 <https://bugs.r- >>>> project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18789> and https://developer.r- >>>> project.org/blosxom.cgi/R-devel/NEWS/2025/03/22#n2025-03-22 <https:// >>>> developer.r-project.org/blosxom.cgi/R-devel/ >>>> NEWS/2025/03/22#n2025-03-22>. But that is unrelated. >>> >>> Sorry, I missed that. >>> >>>> >>>> To Tim's comment?the check is a simple grep of the installation?log >>>> for "Downloading crates." This could be easily circumvented on CRAN >>>> and locally by suppressing stdout/err. But that would be adversarial >>>> and I would like to adhere to the intent of the check. >>> >>> I think Tim was suggesting that you modify your Github action to ignore >>> this particular warning.? The warning would still appear, but it >>> wouldn't cause a check failure. >>> >>> Duncan Murdoch >> >> At a very quick look, I don't see an easy way to do that (but I am >> admittedly really bad at doing stuff with Github actions). Maybe longer >> term, but it feels like the best way to do this would be to request a >> feature in `rcmdcheck` that allowed the user to request ignoring >> specific warnings (e.g. specified by regexp?), then expose that feature >> in the r-check-package action (or whatever it's called ...) >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 9:23?AM Duncan Murdoch >>>> <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> ??? On 2025-03-31 11:50 a.m., Josiah Parry wrote: >>>> ???? > Following up with this as I address the new R-devel "Compiled code >>>> ???? > should not call entry points which might terminate R" WARNING and >>>> ??? this >>>> ???? > issue has reared its head again. >>>> ???? > >>>> ???? > Would a path forward be an environment variable similar >>>> ???? > to?_R_CHECK_CRAN_INCOMING_ to skip this check primarily for GitHub >>>> ???? > Actions and CI? >>>> >>>> ??? The "Compiled code should not call entry points which might >>>> ??? terminate R" >>>> ??? isn't a new warning.? I think the last change to it was made in 2022. >>>> >>>> ??? Maybe your code, or code in one of the libraries you use, has >>>> changed? >>>> >>>> ??? Duncan Murdoch >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ???? > >>>> ???? > Or, alternatively, if this could be a NOTE when the `--as-cran` >>>> flag >>>> ???? > isn't set but a WARNING when it is? >>>> ???? > >>>> ???? > Re-vendoring dependencies each time they are changed during the >>>> ???? > development lifecycle is quite a bit. However, vendoring once >>>> ??? prior to >>>> ???? > publishing makes good sense. >>>> ???? > >>>> ???? > Is there a balance we can strike here to lower development >>>> ??? friction but >>>> ???? > also ensure the robust package installation requirements when >>>> ??? expected? >>>> ???? > >>>> ???? > Using >>>> ???? > >>>> ???? > >>>> ???? > >>>> ???? > >>>> ???? > On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 11:42?AM Duncan Murdoch >>>> ??? <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> >>>> ???? > <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com >>>> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>>> wrote: >>>> ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ?On 2025-03-02 1:09 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote: >>>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? I, like Duncan, am just following along here. I think >>>> there >>>> ???? >? ? ?might be >>>> ???? >? ? ? > two distinct questions which it would be useful to keep >>>> ??? distinct: >>>> ???? >? ? ? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? * how to silence the rust-check if desired? >>>> ???? >? ? ? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?rather than debating whether the rust-check should be >>>> ??? always-on, >>>> ???? >? ? ? > on-for-CRAN-only, etc., would it provide for useful >>>> ??? flexibility >>>> ???? >? ? ?to add >>>> ???? >? ? ? > an environment variable that enables/disables this >>>> ???? >? ? ?functionality?? There >>>> ???? >? ? ? > are already 168 of these environment variables, how much >>>> would >>>> ???? >? ? ?one more >>>> ???? >? ? ? > cost? >>>> ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ?I may have misunderstood Josiah.? I thought his message said >>>> ??? that it is >>>> ???? >? ? ?already easy to silence the check, by stopping the code from >>>> ??? issuing >>>> ???? >? ? ?the >>>> ???? >? ? ?message the check is looking for. >>>> ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ?Presumably the package shouldn't do that, but if there's an >>>> ??? environment >>>> ???? >? ? ?variable that can be set to do it, then the repository or >>>> ??? user can >>>> ???? >? ? ?choose to do it, so there's no need for R to add another >>>> ??? environment >>>> ???? >? ? ?variable. >>>> ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ?BTW, as far as I can see current R-devel doesn't issue an >>>> ??? error, it >>>> ???? >? ? ?just >>>> ???? >? ? ?issues warnings about two issues: >>>> ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? ? - the package is downloading crates >>>> ???? >? ? ? ? - the rustc compiler doesn't report a version number >>>> ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ?Duncan Murdoch >>>> ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?I'm not sure how adding an environment variable to >>>> ??? allow easier >>>> ???? >? ? ? > user/alternate-repository control of the check is >>>> "against the >>>> ???? >? ? ?spirit of >>>> ???? >? ? ? > the check" ... >>>> ???? >? ? ? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?All the existing check-regulating env variables ... >>>> ???? >? ? ? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? > cd src/library/tools/R >>>> ???? >? ? ? > grep 'Sys.getenv("_R_CHECK' * | sed -e >>>> ??? 's/^.*Sys.getenv(//' | sed -e >>>> ???? >? ? ? > 's/[,)].*//' | sort | uniq | wc >>>> ???? >? ? ? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?* should CRAN allow Rust crates to be downloaded? >>>> ???? >? ? ? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?This is a much more fundamental policy decision, which >>>> ??? I have no >>>> ???? >? ? ? > opinion about. >>>> ???? >? ? ? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ?cheers >>>> ???? >? ? ? >? ? ? Ben Bolker >>>> ???? >? ? ? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? > On 2025-03-02 12:21 p.m., Duncan Murdoch wrote: >>>> ???? >? ? ? >> On 2025-03-02 11:03 a.m., Josiah Parry wrote: >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> Well this has surely veered off course! >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> As the one who filed the BugZilla report, I'd like to >>>> ??? redirect the >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> conversation and provide further context. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> The question should?be /"how do we get a dialogue >>>> ??? started on this >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> bugzilla issue before the next minor / >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> /release of R?"/ >>>> ???? >? ? ? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >> Isn't this exactly that dialogue? >>>> ???? >? ? ? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> The current check for Rust-based R package's downloading >>>> ??? external >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> dependencies works by looking at >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> the output logs for the presence of? "Downloading >>>> ??? crates." This >>>> ???? >? ? ?can is >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> an entirely fine requirement for >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> CRAN?however, due to the fact that it is an error, >>>> packages >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> distributed through other repositories >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> fail the R-CMD check. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >> I think you misunderstood me.? CRAN shares the view I >>>> ??? gave that you >>>> ???? >? ? ? >> should be able to run old code to reproduce old >>>> results, but >>>> ???? >? ? ?they aren't >>>> ???? >? ? ? >> the only ones.? That's always been a goal of R. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> Folks who use R-universe or PPM or some mysterious third >>>> ??? thing >>>> ???? >? ? ?may not >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> share the same philosophy as >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> CRAN and prefer the convenience of fetching the >>>> ??? dependencies at >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> compile time and not vendoring them. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> An alternative would be for the check to be optionally >>>> ??? skipped or >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> become a NOTE when the CRAN >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> flag is not set and an ERROR otherwise. Skipping this >>>> CRAN >>>> ???? >? ? ?check is as >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> easy as adding `--quiet` >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> or setting an environment variable?but that is against >>>> the >>>> ???? >? ? ?spirit of >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> the check. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >> If it is that easy to skip the check, then I really >>>> don't see >>>> ???? >? ? ?the issue. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>? ??Just ask the repository where you want to put your >>>> ??? package to >>>> ???? >? ? ?put that >>>> ???? >? ? ? >> option or environment variable in place, and there's no >>>> ??? longer a >>>> ???? >? ? ?problem. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >> Duncan Murdoch >>>> ???? >? ? ? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> Ideally, the check can remain, but scoped appropriately. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 6:49?AM Duncan Murdoch >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com >>>> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com >>>> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com >>>> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com >>>> ??? <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>>>> >>>> ???? >? ? ?wrote: >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? You seem to be taking a confontational tone, which >>>> ??? isn't >>>> ???? >? ? ?likely to >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? encourage a reasonable dialogue. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? I've looked for other messages on this, and didn't >>>> ??? see any >>>> ???? >? ? ?besides >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> this >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? one explaining why including check_rust() in the >>>> ??? checks is >>>> ???? >? ? ?a problem. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? The problem you talk about here is that it >>>> encourages >>>> ???? >? ? ?vendoring, >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> which >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? makes it harder for package authors to count >>>> downloads. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? To be honest, that doesn't seem like a very serious >>>> ???? >? ? ?problem.? I >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> assume >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the packages ("crates") we are talking about are >>>> open >>>> ???? >? ? ?source, so >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? this is >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? entirely in the spirit of how they are allowed to be >>>> ???? >? ? ?distributed. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? If they aren't open source, then users of those >>>> ??? packages >>>> ???? >? ? ?should be >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? warned about that, and a check failure is a good >>>> ??? way to do >>>> ???? >? ? ?that. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? So you need to explain why it is important to be >>>> ??? able to >>>> ???? >? ? ?download and >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? install software and not be warned about it. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? I am not in R Core or CRAN, but I can suggest why >>>> it is >>>> ???? >? ? ?better to >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? include source in the package:? it makes the use of >>>> ??? that >>>> ???? >? ? ?package more >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? reliable in the future.? It's not uncommon to run >>>> an R >>>> ???? >? ? ?computation >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> that >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? was written a few years ago.? Sometimes libraries >>>> or R >>>> ???? >? ? ?have changed, >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? and >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? a user will need to go back to a previous version to >>>> ???? >? ? ?reproduce the >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? calculation.? Being able to able to rebuild a >>>> ??? system as it >>>> ???? >? ? ?would have >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? been back then is important. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? Is that possible if the package needs to make a >>>> ??? download?? The >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> download >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? site that worked a few years ago may no longer >>>> ??? exist.? If >>>> ???? >? ? ?the site >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? exists, the code versions there may be different. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? Those are some of the issues that Simon was >>>> ??? alluding to. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? Duncan Murdoch >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? On 2025-03-02 5:45 a.m., Mossa Merhi Reimert via >>>> ??? R-devel >>>> ???? >? ? ?wrote: >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Dear Simon Urbanek, >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > There has been very little engagement with the >>>> ??? issue I >>>> ???? >? ? ?referred >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? to. If it was decided that this ?check? ought to be >>>> ??? part >>>> ???? >? ? ?of the >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? default checks for R, >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > then that could have been written to us. Either >>>> ??? on the >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> bugs.r-project.org <http://bugs.r-project.org> >>>> ??? <http://bugs.r-project.org <http://bugs.r-project.org>> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<http://bugs.r-project.org <http://bugs.r-project.org> >>>> ??? <http://bugs.r-project.org <http://bugs.r-project.org>>> or the >>>> proposed >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? patch. Before we talk about anything else, >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > it does seem very strange that we cannot get a >>>> ??? reasonable >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? dialogue going. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > I would like to say that the R/Rust community >>>> ??? has grown >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? substantially. From my end, there are 3 bindings >>>> ??? project, >>>> ???? >? ? ?extendr, >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? savvy, and roxido. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Then, there are now many rust-based packages on >>>> ??? CRAN, >>>> ???? >? ? ?see this >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? most recent compiled list >>>> ???? > https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs >>>> ??? <https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs >>>> ??? <https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs >>>> ??? <https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs >>>> ??? <https://github.com/nanxstats/r-rust-pkgs>>>. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > There is also proof-of-concept >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust >>>> ??? <https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust >>>> ??? <https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust >>>> ??? <https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust >>>> ??? <https://github.com/r-rust/hellorust>>> that integrates `cargo`, >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? rust?s official build system, with R?s package >>>> ??? build system, >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > and https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc >>>> ??? <https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc >>>> ??? <https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc >>>> ??? <https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc >>>> ??? <https://github.com/extendr/hellorustc>>>, which showcases how Rust >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? compiler could be directly linked with R?s package >>>> ??? system. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >? ?Let me say, that the current R CMD check is >>>> ??? not meant >>>> ???? >? ? ?to be >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? ?helpful?. When a package is built, `cargo` tells >>>> ??? the user >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? ?Downloading crates?. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Thus, this information is already conveyed to >>>> ??? the user. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Personally, I do wish we could debate this >>>> ??? requirement >>>> ???? >? ? ?further. I >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? do not believe that having R-packages on CRAN >>>> ??? vendor rust >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> dependencies >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > as a good policy. Download statistics is a >>>> success >>>> ???? >? ? ?metric of a >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? given r-package and rust packages. By insisting on >>>> ???? >? ? ?vendoring, and >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> thus >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > side-stepping `cargo` / crates.io >>>> ??? <http://crates.io> <http://crates.io <http://crates.io>> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<http://crates.io <http://crates.io> <http://crates.io >>>> ??? <http://crates.io>>>, we are >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? robbing upstream authors of their download-numbers. >>>> ??? I do >>>> ???? >? ? ?not think >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? such policy is honourable. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > While C/C++ do not have official package >>>> ??? repositories, >>>> ???? >? ? ?it could >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? be thought of, as fair game, to have CRAN act as a >>>> ??? pseudo >>>> ???? >? ? ?package >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? manager for C/C++ libraries. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > I?m not going to argue for or against this part. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > There are many objections from the CRAN side to >>>> ??? all things >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? related to Rust. I don?t want to open multiple >>>> ??? topics in >>>> ???? >? ? ?the same >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? thread. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > But there is plenty to bring up. And I had >>>> hoped we >>>> ???? >? ? ?could talk >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? this little issue through, before embarking on a >>>> larger >>>> ???? >? ? ?discussion. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > I do not appreciate the ?random demands? >>>> comment, as >>>> ???? >? ? ?this is not >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? a demand, nor is it random. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > I have inquired my end of the community for >>>> ??? suggestions >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > to compile a larger proposal, but then I was >>>> afraid >>>> ???? >? ? ?that this >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? would be perceived as a big, bulky demand. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Rust is not C/C++/Java, and the support for Rust >>>> ??? cannot >>>> ???? >? ? ?look like >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the support for these languages. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > From: Simon Urbanek <simon.urbanek at R-project.org> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Date: Sunday, 2 March 2025 at 00.39 >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > To: Mossa Merhi Reimert <mossa at sund.ku.dk >>>> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk> >>>> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>>>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Cc: r-devel at r-project.org >>>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>> >>>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <r-devel at r-project.org >>>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org >>>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> >>>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>>>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Subject: Re: [Rd] R CMD check and CRAN's Rust >>>> policy >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > [Du f?r ikke ofte mails fra >>>> ??? simon.urbanek at r-project.org <mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org >>>> ??? <mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org >>>> ??? <mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org >>>> ??? <mailto:simon.urbanek at r-project.org>>>. F? mere at vide om, hvorfor >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? dette er vigtigt, p? >>>> ???? > https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification >>>> ??? <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification >>>> ??? <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification >>>> ??? <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification >>>> ??? <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>>> ] >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Mossa, >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > the issue you cite is lacking any pertinent >>>> ??? information >>>> ???? >? ? ?and it's >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? not even clear why it should be an issue. The >>>> check is >>>> ???? >? ? ?perfectly >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? justified, it just reports whether a package >>>> using rust >>>> ???? >? ? ?declares >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? this correctly and where it downloads 3rd party >>>> ??? content - >>>> ???? >? ? ?something >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? that is important to R users in general and not >>>> ??? related to >>>> ???? >? ? ?CRAN. I >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? don't see how any of this is "prohibitive" it just >>>> ??? calls >>>> ???? >? ? ?out what >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the package is already doing. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > As discussed before, my hope was that the "R"ust >>>> ???? >? ? ?community will >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? mature enough to work on proper support. It is not >>>> ??? clear >>>> ???? >? ? ?that it >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? happened yet, but once it does it would make sense >>>> ??? to talk >>>> ???? >? ? ?about >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? support just as we have for C, C++ and Java, so >>>> ??? certainly that >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? should be the right discussion. However, it will >>>> ??? have to >>>> ???? >? ? ?start with >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? some thinking and a proposal on how the associated >>>> ??? issues >>>> ???? >? ? ?(compiler >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? support, versioning, dependency sources etc.) are >>>> to be >>>> ???? >? ? ?addressed, >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? as opposed to making random demands. All this has >>>> ??? nothing >>>> ???? >? ? ?to do with >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? CRAN so the issue you mention seems irrelevant to >>>> the >>>> ???? >? ? ?progress. Also >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? I'd like to know what are the "challenges >>>> embedded in R >>>> ???? >? ? ?itself". >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Cheers, >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > Simon >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> On Mar 2, 2025, at 8:45 AM, Mossa Merhi >>>> Reimert via >>>> ???? >? ? ?R-devel >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <r-devel at r-project.org >>>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org >>>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org> >>>> ??? <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org <mailto:r-devel at r-project.org>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Hello everyone! >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> I'm Mossa, I'm one of the maintainers of >>>> ??? extendr, an >>>> ???? >? ? ?automated >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? generation of bindings project for >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Rust code, for use in R-packages. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> I'm writing to you, as R 4.4.3 was just >>>> ??? released, and >>>> ???? >? ? ?there have >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? not been >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> follow-up on an issue important to us. Link >>>> to the >>>> ???? >? ? ?issue as >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? discussed on r-devel >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>>> ???? > https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html> >>>> ???? > ???? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024- >>>> October/083666.html >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? > ???? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024- >>>> October/083666.html >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html> >>>> ???? > ???? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024- >>>> October/083666.html >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2024-October/083666.html>>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> A community member has provided a suggestion >>>> to a >>>> ???? >? ? ?patch here >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182 >>>> ??? <https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182 >>>> ??? <https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182 >>>> ??? <https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182 >>>> ??? <https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/182>>>, and we have also >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? attempted to bring it up on >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Bugzilla: >>>> ???? > https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806 >>>> ??? <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806 >>>> ??? <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806 >>>> ??? <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806 >>>> ??? <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18806>>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> TLDR: Default `R CMD check` uses additional >>>> ???? >? ? ?CRAN-specific checks >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? for Rust, >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> instead of keeping this behind the --as-cran >>>> flag. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> I would like to say, that there is a growing >>>> ??? interest >>>> ???? >? ? ?in Rust >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? within the R community. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> And generally, Rust becoming a widely adopted >>>> ??? language >>>> ???? >? ? ?within >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the Python community (including the scientific part >>>> ??? of that >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? community). It is time to deal with the >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> pain points with using Rust in R. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Therefore, I would kindly ask that we have a >>>> ??? dialogue >>>> ???? >? ? ?on how to >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? remedy the issue above first, and how we may deal >>>> with >>>> ???? >? ? ?other issues >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? going forward. There are both challenges embedded >>>> in R >>>> ???? >? ? ?itself, and >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? the current CRAN policy for Rust is prohibitive. >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Mossa Merhi Reimert >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Postdoctoral Researcher >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> K?benhavns Universitet >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Animal Welfare and Disease Control >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Gr?nneg?rdsvej 8 >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> 1870 Frederiksberg C >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> Denmark >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> +45 35324135 >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk> >>>> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk >>>> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>>><mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk >>>> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk> >>>> ??? <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk <mailto:mossa at sund.ku.dk>>>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >>? ? ? ? [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> ______________________________________________ >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> R-devel at r-project.org >>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org >>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> >>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>>> >>>> ???? >? ? ?mailing list >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? >? ? ? ?[[alternative HTML version deleted]] >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > ______________________________________________ >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > R-devel at r-project.org >>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org >>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> >>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>>> >>>> ???? >? ? ?mailing list >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ???? > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? ______________________________________________ >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> >>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> >>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>>> >>>> ???? >? ? ?mailing list >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>>? ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >> >>>> ???? >? ? ? >> ______________________________________________ >>>> ???? >? ? ? >> R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> >>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>> >>>> ??? mailing list >>>> ???? >? ? ? >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>> >>>> ???? >? ? ? > >>>> ???? > >>>> ???? >? ? ?______________________________________________ >>>> ???? > R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> >>>> ??? <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>> >>>> ??? mailing list >>>> ???? > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel> >>>> ???? >? ? ?<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>>> ??? <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel>> >>>> ???? > >>>> >>> >> >