В Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:54:22 +0000 "Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (NP)" <wolfgang.viechtba...@maastrichtuniversity.nl> пишет:
> This appears to be related to this change > (https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-devel/NEWS.html): > > - tools::checkRd() (used by R CMD check) detects more problems with > \Sexpr-based dynamic content, including bad nesting of \Sexprs > and invalid arguments. The exact change was: r85348 | hornik | 2023-10-18 08:13:46 +0000 (Wed, 18 Oct 2023) | 1 line Build PDF refman only when explicitly asked for. --- src/library/tools/R/build.R (revision 85347) +++ src/library/tools/R/build.R (revision 85348) @@ -633,7 +633,7 @@ } needRefman <- manual && - parse_description_field(desc, "BuildManual", TRUE) && + parse_description_field(desc, "BuildManual", FALSE) && any(btinfo[, "later"]) if (needRefman) { messageLog(Log, "building the PDF package manual") So now R CMD build only builds the manual when both BuildManual is set to yes _and_ there are \Sexpr{}s with [stage=install or render]. (Previously BuildManual: yes was assumed by default.) Was the motivation for this change to make R CMD build faster for everyone, with the expectation that the relatively rare package maintainers with non-[stage=build] \Sexpr{}s will set BuildManual: yes to adapt? -- Best regards, Ivan ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
