Re: [R-pkg-devel] CRAN policy on binary submission

2018-01-09 Thread Uwe Ligges 



On 09.01.2018 03:25, Hugh Parsonage wrote:

On https://cran.r-project.org/ , it says


Note that we generally do not accept submissions of precompiled binaries due to 
security reasons


I note it says 'generally', not 'always'. Are there any packages on
CRAN which were submitted as precompiled binaries? 


No.


Under what
circumstances would CRAN accept binaries?



Not at all.

Best,
Uwe Ligges



Hugh

__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel



__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel

[R-pkg-devel] Fwd: [CRAN-pretest-archived] CRAN submission simpleroptions 0.2.0

2018-01-09 Thread Luca Cerone 
Dear all,
I have submitted my first R package to CRAN and I have received the email
below back.

If I understood the log message correctly, to fix the issues is fairly
simple:
- correct the Title using the Title Case suggestion
- change a bit the description so that "simpleroptions" is not the first
word in the DESCRIPTION.

Also the mispelled word is the name of my package so I guess that is OK,
isn't it?

Before re-submitting and wasting CRAN reviewers time I would like to know
that with the changes above the package would be good for acceptance.

Also I do have a question, I have tried several times to check whether my
package was ready for CRAN using the devtools::check() function and I
got to the point were I have no Warning no Notes. Is it normal that the
checks can be different? Or maybe it is a symptom that I am doing something
wrong with the build() and check() steps?

Thank you all for your help with this!

Cheers,
Luca

-- Forwarded message --
From: 
Date: Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:29 PM
Subject: [CRAN-pretest-archived] CRAN submission simpleroptions 0.2.0
To: luca.cer...@gmail.com
Cc: cran-submissi...@r-project.org


Dear maintainer,

package simpleroptions_0.2.0.tar.gz does not pass the incoming checks
automatically, please see the pre-test at:

Status: 1 WARNING, 1 NOTE


Please fix all problems and resubmit a fixed version via the webform.
If you are not sure how to fix the problems shown, please ask for help on
the R-package-devel mailing list:

If you are fairly certain the rejection is a false positive, please
reply-all to this message and explain.

More details are given in the directory:

The files will be removed after roughly 7 days.


Best regards,
CRAN teams' auto-check service

[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Fwd: [CRAN-pretest-archived] CRAN submission simpleroptions 0.2.0

2018-01-09 Thread Daniel Nüst 
Hi Luca,

On 09/01/18 09:22, Luca Cerone wrote:
> I have submitted my first R package to CRAN and I have received the email
> below back.
> 
> If I understood the log message correctly, to fix the issues is fairly
> simple:
> - correct the Title using the Title Case suggestion
> - change a bit the description so that "simpleroptions" is not the first
> word in the DESCRIPTION.

Yes.

> Also the mispelled word is the name of my package so I guess that is OK,
> isn't it?

The "misspelled" word should not be a problem.

> Before re-submitting and wasting CRAN reviewers time I would like to know
> that with the changes above the package would be good for acceptance.

Please note also that you have a warning:

* checking DESCRIPTION meta-information ... WARNING
Dependence on R version '3.4.2' not with patchlevel 0

https://github.com/lucacerone/simpleroptions/blob/master/DESCRIPTION
should have

Depends: R (>= 3.4.0)

and not "3.4.2".

In case you want to prepare even better for CRAN (across architectures),
take a look at the rhub package: https://cran.r-project.org/package=rhub
 Hope this helps,
Daniel

> Also I do have a question, I have tried several times to check whether my
> package was ready for CRAN using the devtools::check() function and I
> got to the point were I have no Warning no Notes. Is it normal that the
> checks can be different? Or maybe it is a symptom that I am doing something
> wrong with the build() and check() steps?

> Thank you all for your help with this!
> 
> Cheers,
> Luca
> 
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: 
> Date: Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:29 PM
> Subject: [CRAN-pretest-archived] CRAN submission simpleroptions 0.2.0
> To: luca.cer...@gmail.com
> Cc: cran-submissi...@r-project.org
> 
> 
> Dear maintainer,
> 
> package simpleroptions_0.2.0.tar.gz does not pass the incoming checks
> automatically, please see the pre-test at:
>  180108_232242_simpleroptions_020/00check.log>
> Status: 1 WARNING, 1 NOTE
> 
> 
> Please fix all problems and resubmit a fixed version via the webform.
> If you are not sure how to fix the problems shown, please ask for help on
> the R-package-devel mailing list:
> 
> If you are fairly certain the rejection is a false positive, please
> reply-all to this message and explain.
> 
> More details are given in the directory:
>  180108_232242_simpleroptions_020>
> The files will be removed after roughly 7 days.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> CRAN teams' auto-check service
> 
>   [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> 
> __
> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
> 

-- 
Daniel Nüst
Institute for Geoinformatics (ifgi),   University of Münster
Heisenbergstraße 2, 48149 Münster, Germany; +49 251 83 31962
http://ifgi.uni-muenster.de/~d_nues01http://o2r.info

__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Fwd: [CRAN-pretest-archived] CRAN submission simpleroptions 0.2.0

2018-01-09 Thread Uwe Ligges 



On 09.01.2018 09:22, Luca Cerone wrote:

Dear all,
I have submitted my first R package to CRAN and I have received the email
below back.

If I understood the log message correctly, to fix the issues is fairly
simple:
- correct the Title using the Title Case suggestion
- change a bit the description so that "simpleroptions" is not the first
word in the DESCRIPTION.

Also the mispelled word is the name of my package so I guess that is OK,
isn't it >
Before re-submitting and wasting CRAN reviewers time I would like to know
that with the changes above the package would be good for acceptance.


We see:

File 'LICENSE':
  MIT License

  Copyright (c) 2017 Luca Cerone

  Permission ..


Please only submit the CRAN template for the MIT licernse.

Possibly mis-spelled words in DESCRIPTION:
  simpleroptions (3:14)

Software names should be single quoted in the Description field, but I 
doubt you need it as people know your package's namne already.



The Title field should be in title case, current version then in title case:
'Easily manage options files for your packages and scripts'
'Easily Manage Options Files for your Packages and Scripts'

The Description field should not start with the package name,
  'This package' or similar.

Hence less redundancy.


* checking DESCRIPTION meta-information ... WARNING
Dependence on R version '3.4.2' not with patchlevel 0


Use patchlevel 0 if applicable.



You also left a file in the user'S home dir:
  .simpleroptions_vignette

It is not permitted to write there without the user explicitly 
specifying it.


Best,
Uwe Ligges


Also I do have a question, I have tried several times to check whether my
package was ready for CRAN using the devtools::check() function and I
got to the point were I have no Warning no Notes. Is it normal that the
checks can be different? Or maybe it is a symptom that I am doing something
wrong with the build() and check() steps?

Thank you all for your help with this!

Cheers,
Luca

-- Forwarded message --
From: 
Date: Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:29 PM
Subject: [CRAN-pretest-archived] CRAN submission simpleroptions 0.2.0
To: luca.cer...@gmail.com
Cc: cran-submissi...@r-project.org


Dear maintainer,

package simpleroptions_0.2.0.tar.gz does not pass the incoming checks
automatically, please see the pre-test at:

Status: 1 WARNING, 1 NOTE


Please fix all problems and resubmit a fixed version via the webform.
If you are not sure how to fix the problems shown, please ask for help on
the R-package-devel mailing list:

If you are fairly certain the rejection is a false positive, please
reply-all to this message and explain.

More details are given in the directory:

The files will be removed after roughly 7 days.


Best regards,
CRAN teams' auto-check service

[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel



__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel

[R-pkg-devel] (no subject)

2018-01-09 Thread Tim Keitt 
I'm seeing:

* checking re-building of vignette outputs ... [3s] WARNING
> Error in re-building vignettes:
> ...
> Quitting from lines 24-60 (strider.Rmd)
> Error: processing vignette 'strider.Rmd' failed with diagnostics:
> package 'dplyr' is not installed for 'arch = x64'
> Execution halted



I'm a little confused because my vignette avoids loading any packages that
are not available. Is this because the "eval" option is not available in
the version of knitr used by CRAN?

Here's the vignette code:

>
> ---
> title: "The Strider Package"
> author: "Timothy H. Keitt"
> date: "`r Sys.Date()`"
> output: rmarkdown::html_vignette
> vignette: >
>   %\VignetteIndexEntry{Vignette Title}
>   %\VignetteEngine{knitr::rmarkdown}
>   %\VignetteEncoding{UTF-8}
> ---
> ```{r include=FALSE}
> has_packages = all(c("dplyr", "ggplot2", "microbenchmark") %in%
> rownames(installed.packages()))
> not_has_packages = !has_packages
> ```
> ```{r echo=FALSE, eval=not_has_packages}
> cat("Error: You must install dplyr, ggplot2 and microbenchmark to run the
> code in this vignette.")
> ```
> ```{r include=FALSE, message=FALSE, warning=FALSE, eval=has_packages}
> library(dplyr)
> library(ggplot2)
> library(microbenchmark)
> ...


This works fine on my computer even if I uninstall dplyr, etc. But it
appears that when CRAN tries to rebuild the vignette, the "eval" flag is
ignored?

Tricky to reproduce as the exact code used to regenerate the vignette is
not part of the output.

THK


http://www.keittlab.org/

[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel