Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "valid_package_version".
2009 Mar 03
1
execution time of .packages
...if (is.null(lib.loc))
lib.loc <- .libPaths()
if (all.available) {
ans <- character(0L)
lib.loc <- lib.loc[file.exists(lib.loc)]
valid_package_version_regexp <-
.standard_regexps()$valid_package_version
for (lib in lib.loc)
{
a <- list.files(lib, all.files = FALSE, full.names =
FALSE)...
2011 Feb 19
1
Accessing Package NEWS (NEWS.Rd)
...t;)
exiting from: tools:::.build_news_db_from_package_NEWS_Rd(newsfile)
Error: invalid version specification CHANGES IN VERSION 1.0.0CHANGES IN VERSION 1.0.1CHANGES IN VERSION 2.0.0
Well, so it didn't like my version numbers. But is the regexp check correct?
Browse[2]> .standard_regexps()$valid_package_version
[1] "([[:digit:]]+[.-]){1,}[[:digit:]]+"
Would appear as though packages with only major.minor comparisons would
pass. Or did I miss something...
----
P.S. Another thing I didn't see specified was whether this was an acceptable format
in current Rd format:
\section{CHANGES IN VERS...