Am 15. Juni 2011 09:19 schrieb Uwe Ligges <lig...@statistik.tu-dortmund.de>: > > > On 15.06.2011 01:21, Kornelius Rohmeyer wrote: >> >> 2011/6/11 Duncan Murdoch<murdoch.dun...@gmail.com>: >> [...] >>> >>> I don't understand. It sounds as though you're saying these two >>> contradictory things: >>> >>> - your package works with any version of graph >>> - CRAN builds a version of graph that is incompatible with your package. >> >> No, the first statement is correct but not the second: >> >> - Installed from source my package works with any version of graph and >> also: >> - A binary of my package built with graph 1.28 will work with graph >> 1.28. >> - A binary of my package built with graph 1.30 will work with graph >> 1.30. >> >> - But a binary of my package built with graph 1.30 will not work with >> graph 1.28. >> (If it is surprising for anyone, that this can happen, we can go >> into detail here. >> I doubt that this is the place to fix things, but maybe I am wrong?) > > > Sure, this can happen, particularly with compiled code or S4 stuff in the > packages. > > >> I personally found it unfortunate, that due to different policies of >> CRAN and Bioconductor for R 2.12 there are (up to my knowledge) no >> more any binary packages of gMCP and graph available for R 2.12 that >> are compatible. (In this case the problem can be solved manually by >> installing the graph package binary from Bioconductor for R 2.13 that >> works also for R 2.12.) > > > Your package has been recompiled against graph 1.28. > > Triggering an install.packages(yourpackage) will install a version that > works, even for R-2.12.x > > >> >>> I am not involved with setting CRAN policy, but their current policy >>> (build >>> the most recent version of a package that declares itself compatible with >>> the relevant version of R) seems reasonable. >> >> Personally I find it more reasonable to apply the Bioconductor policy >> to Bioconductor packages that are installed on CRAN for building >> packages that depend on those. > > No no no! graph was a CRAN package up to few weeks ago. AAnd as a CRAN > package the CRAN policy applied. Now that it was removed, it is fine and > handled as a BioC package anayway. It was just the case that graph 1.30 was > a CRAN package once and hence your package was built against that one. Now > that you told us we rebuilt your package after graph 1.30 was removed from > CRAN and it should be fine. But it looks like you have not even tested! >
The package was already built 18 days after graph was removed from CRAN… I'll try to ignore the "But it looks like you have not even tested!" since I tested it 4 days ago, when it did not work. And since I had no notice up to today that it was rebuilt with a new (i.e. old) version of the graph package, I did not expect that it had changed already (also my computer is not a Windows machine, which makes testing more complicated). Nevertheless a big, big thank you and I'm sorry that such a small problem caused such a lengthy conservation. Thanks and best regards, Kornelius. > Uwe > > >> But you and Uwe seem to disagree. Since >> this is (IMHO) a matter of taste and where one assigns priorities and >> these seem to differ, there is not much to discuss… >> >> Thanks for the clear advise and also thanks to all CRAN maintainers >> for the great services nevertheless! >> >> Best regards, Kornelius. >> >> ______________________________________________ >> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
