[R-pkg-devel] R 3.6.0, rpath and StagedInstall

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

I have one (or two) packages that use an external library. So we use -rpath
to tell the dynamic linker about it.

But R 3.6.0 dislikes this and howls about an absolute path ending in
error. So we use StagedInstall: No.  Which gets a NOTE.  Which is still not
ideal and I would like to avoid it, but am short of ideas as to how.

Has anybody else encountered this and found a workaround, or can think of one?

Thanks,  Dirk

-- 
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org

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

[R-pkg-devel] Note on check of DOI: string

[Roger Bivand]

Using https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/submission_checklist.html, I 
have a real but non-conformant DOI string in my DESCRIPTION file:


https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990830)18:16<2147::AID-SIM179>3.0.CO;2-I

giving in check --as-cran:

Found the following (possibly) invalid DOIs:
  DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990830)18:16<2147::AID-SIM179
From: DESCRIPTION
Status: Bad Request
Message: 400

as parsing the string appears not to parse the embedded ">" correctly. Is 
escaping possible? Easiest would be just dropping the DOI in this case, as 
it is not rendering correctly. It looks like the pattern string in 
tools/R/doitools.R line 33 is over-eager.


Hints welcome,

Roger

--
Roger Bivand
Department of Economics, Norwegian School of Economics,
Helleveien 30, N-5045 Bergen, Norway.
voice: +47 55 95 93 55; e-mail: roger.biv...@nhh.no
https://orcid.org/-0003-2392-6140
https://scholar.google.no/citations?user=AWeghB0J&hl=en

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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Note on check of DOI: string

[Uwe Ligges]

On 02.04.2019 18:35, Roger Bivand wrote:
Using https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/submission_checklist.html, 
I have a real but non-conformant DOI string in my DESCRIPTION file:


https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990830)18:16<2147::AID-SIM179>3.0.CO;2-I 



giving in check --as-cran:

Found the following (possibly) invalid DOIs:
   DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990830)18:16<2147::AID-SIM179
     From: DESCRIPTION
     Status: Bad Request
     Message: 400

as parsing the string appears not to parse the embedded ">" correctly. 
Is escaping possible? Easiest would be just dropping the DOI in this 
case, as it is not rendering correctly. It looks like the pattern string 
in tools/R/doitools.R line 33 is over-eager.


Hints welcome,


URLencode() it for the DESCRIPTION file.

Best,
Uwe



Roger



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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Note on check of DOI: string

[Roger Bivand]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Uwe Ligges wrote:




On 02.04.2019 18:35, Roger Bivand wrote:

 Using https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/submission_checklist.html, I
 have a real but non-conformant DOI string in my DESCRIPTION file:

 
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990830)18:16<2147::AID-SIM179>3.0.CO;2-I

 giving in check --as-cran:

 Found the following (possibly) invalid DOIs:
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990830)18:16<2147::AID-SIM179
      From: DESCRIPTION
      Status: Bad Request
      Message: 400

 as parsing the string appears not to parse the embedded ">" correctly. Is
 escaping possible? Easiest would be just dropping the DOI in this case, as
 it is not rendering correctly. It looks like the pattern string in
 tools/R/doitools.R line 33 is over-eager.

 Hints welcome,


URLencode() it for the DESCRIPTION file.


Thanks, that is much simpler than expecting processing DESCRIPTION to sort 
it out: URLencode() the string in R and copy/paste the output into the 
DESCRIPTION file.


Best wishes,

Roger



Best,
Uwe



 Roger






--
Roger Bivand
Department of Economics, Norwegian School of Economics,
Helleveien 30, N-5045 Bergen, Norway.
voice: +47 55 95 93 55; e-mail: roger.biv...@nhh.no
https://orcid.org/-0003-2392-6140
https://scholar.google.no/citations?user=AWeghB0J&hl=en
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel

[R-pkg-devel] Splitting maintainer from creator

[Roy Mendelssohn - NOAA Federal via R-package-devel]

--- Begin Message ---
Hi All;

In defining the roles in Description file of a package,  has there been any 
thought of adding a role of maintainer separate from creator  (cre).  While the 
definition given says:

> cre: the creator or maintainer, the person you should bother if you have 
> problems.

that "or" separates two really distinct roles.  To me the sense of the word 
"creator' is the person or persons who originally created the package.  A 
present maintainer may well have only added patches to the present package,  
but would need to be defined as "cre" to be the one to receive emails.

Thanks,

-Roy

**
"The contents of this message do not reflect any position of the U.S. 
Government or NOAA."
**
Roy Mendelssohn
Supervisory Operations Research Analyst
NOAA/NMFS
Environmental Research Division
Southwest Fisheries Science Center
***Note new street address***
110 McAllister Way
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Phone: (831)-420-3666
Fax: (831) 420-3980
e-mail: roy.mendelss...@noaa.gov www: http://www.pfeg.noaa.gov/

"Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill."
"From those who have been given much, much will be expected" 
"the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" -MLK Jr.

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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Splitting maintainer from creator

[Ben Bolker]

I think the problem is that MARC terms
 don't seem to have
any choices analogous to "maintainer".

Author [aut] A person, family, or organization responsible for
creating a work that is primarily textual in content, regardless of
media type (e.g., printed text, spoken word, electronic text, tactile
text) or genre (e.g., poems, novels, screenplays, blogs). Use also for
persons, etc., creating a new work by paraphrasing, rewriting, or
adapting works by another creator such that the modification has
substantially changed the nature and content of the original or
changed the medium of expression

{Note under "Joint author": use "Author".  There doesn't seem to be a
concept of "primary author" here.}

Creator [cre] A person or organization responsible for the
intellectual or artistic content of a resource

If we were starting again, we might choose maintainer="Editor" ...

Editor [edt] A person, family, or organization contributing to a
resource by revising or elucidating the content, e.g., adding an
introduction, notes, or other critical matter. An editor may also
prepare a resource for production, publication, or distribution. For
major revisions, adaptations, etc., that substantially change the
nature and content of the original work, resulting in a new work, see
author

Other interesting tags:

Conceptor [ccp] A person or organization responsible for the original
idea on which a work is based, this includes the scientific author of
an audio-visual item and the conceptor of an advertisement

Dubious author [dub] A person or organization to which authorship has
been dubiously or incorrectly ascribed

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 1:58 PM Roy Mendelssohn - NOAA Federal via
R-package-devel  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Roy Mendelssohn - NOAA Federal 
> To: "Maëlle SALMON via R-package-devel" 
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 10:58:08 -0700
> Subject: Splitting maintainer from creator
> Hi All;
>
> In defining the roles in Description file of a package,  has there been any 
> thought of adding a role of maintainer separate from creator  (cre).  While 
> the definition given says:
>
> > cre: the creator or maintainer, the person you should bother if you have 
> > problems.
>
> that "or" separates two really distinct roles.  To me the sense of the word 
> "creator' is the person or persons who originally created the package.  A 
> present maintainer may well have only added patches to the present package,  
> but would need to be defined as "cre" to be the one to receive emails.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Roy
>
> **
> "The contents of this message do not reflect any position of the U.S. 
> Government or NOAA."
> **
> Roy Mendelssohn
> Supervisory Operations Research Analyst
> NOAA/NMFS
> Environmental Research Division
> Southwest Fisheries Science Center
> ***Note new street address***
> 110 McAllister Way
> Santa Cruz, CA 95060
> Phone: (831)-420-3666
> Fax: (831) 420-3980
> e-mail: roy.mendelss...@noaa.gov www: http://www.pfeg.noaa.gov/
>
> "Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill."
> "From those who have been given much, much will be expected"
> "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" -MLK Jr.
>
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Roy Mendelssohn - NOAA Federal via R-package-devel 
> 
> To: "Maëlle SALMON via R-package-devel" 
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 10:58:08 -0700
> Subject: [R-pkg-devel] Splitting maintainer from creator
> __
> 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] CRAN Submission Stalled

[David Kepplinger]

Dear Community,

I am in the process of submitting an update for my package
(https://cran.r-project.org/package=pense), but it does not pass the
incoming checks. After discussion on this list (thread "CRAN incoming
checks fail due to non-staged installation"), I am fairly certain the
issue is a false positive, which I also told the CRAN team in the
reply to the rejection (to cran-submissi...@r-project.org).

I haven't heard back from the CRAN team since over a week and I wanted
to double check if I have to take other steps (other than just
replying to the automated message) or if I simply have to be more
patient.

I am concerned because the old release of the package did not pass the
CRAN checks for R-devel anymore, but the submission for the updated
version has been taking longer than expected and the package is now
archived on CRAN. I have been given 2 weeks to fix the problems, but
the submission process is already taking 3 weeks.

Thanks,
David

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