>>>>> Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com>
>>>>> on Mon, 3 Nov 2014 06:28:19 -0500 writes:
> On 03/11/2014, 4:17 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
>>>>>>> Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 13:17:56 -0400 writes:
>>
>> > On 01/11/2014, 11:33 AM, Peter Simons wrote:
>> >> Hi Uwe,
>> >>
>> >> > Nobody in R core runs NixOS and can reproduce
>> >> this. This passes on most > other platforms,
>> >> apparently. If you can point us to a problem or send >
>> >> patches, we'd appreciate it.
>> >>
>> >> have tried running the test suite in a build that's
>> >> configured with '--without-recommended-packages'? That's
>> >> about the only unusual thing we do when building with
>> >> Nix. Other than that, our build runs on a perfectly
>> >> ordinary Linux -- and it used to succeed fine in earlier
>> >> versions of R.
>>
>> > The tests "make check-devel" and "make check-all" are
>> > documented to require the recommended packages, and will
>> > fail without them. On Windows, "make check" also needs
>> > them, so this may be true on other systems as well.
>>
>> Thank you Duncan, for clarifying (above and later in the thread).
>>
>> Would it be hard to strive for
>>
>> 1) 'make check' should pass without-rec....
>> 2) 'make check-devel' etc do require the recommended packages.
>>
>> That would be ideal I think - and correspond to the fact that
>> we call the recommended packages 'recommended' only.
> I think we could avoid errors in make check, but not warnings. People
> need to understand what the tests are testing, and recognize that some
> warnings are ignorable.
> To do this, we'd need to make sure that no examples in base packages
> require the use of recommended packages. Currently the failure happens
> in capture.output, because it runs the glm example which needs MASS.
> (The glm example is marked not to need MASS during testing, but the
> capture.output example runs everything.)
aah.. that's interesting in itself: Maybe example() should also
get 'run.dontcheck' argument in addition to its 'run.dontrun'
and Rd2ex() a similar enhancement.... I'm looking into that.
> Fixing that one causes the error to happen later.
"fascinating", as Kurt may say ..
>> OTOH, if '1)' is too much work for us, we could add this as a
>> 'wishlist' item and wait for someone to send patches..
> Alternatively, we could require the recommended packages for all tests.
> Duncan Murdoch
which seems too extreme. If some people really only want to test
something like "the R base engine", they should be easily able
to do so, and I still think that 'make check' should do exactly that.
In the tests/Makefile.{common|in} this is even called
"test-all-basics"
One thing to consider might remove 'Examples' from the "all-basics"
and use 'Examples' only in a new make target between "basics"
and "devel".
But personally, I'd strive for fixing the few (I hope) cases in
the Examples we currently have.
Using the \dontcheck{..} tag should really help there.
Martin Maechler
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
