[R-pkg-devel] Cadence of macOS builds at CRAN
Simon, A new package of mine [1] appeared on CRAN on Sep 5. Respecting the one week gap, I made a small update on Sep 12. Today is Sep 14. There are still no builds for macOS r-release (arm64) macOS r-oldrel (arm64) macOS r-release (x86_64) but we do have two oldrel releases. Weirder still we have results for macOS r-release (x86_64) even when the binary is not listed. There is nothing tricky in the package or it dependencies. Could you provide an update of what should and can be expected in the macOS provision? Is this a matter of intra-CRAN syncing between your builder(s) and the Vienna site? Thanks as always, Dirk [1] https://cran.r-project.org/package=RcppInt64 -- dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org __ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Cadence of macOS builds at CRAN
Dirk, Providing a partial answer: Simon replied earlier today to my related question; macOS builds had been blocked, but are starting to flow again. > one package managed to spawn a separate process that was blocking the build process (long story) and I was on the other side of the world. It should be fixed now, but it may take up to a day before the backlog is processed. https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-package-devel/2023q3/009562.html Aron On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 9:09 AM Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > Simon, > > A new package of mine [1] appeared on CRAN on Sep 5. Respecting the one > week gap, > I made a small update on Sep 12. > > Today is Sep 14. There are still no builds for > macOS r-release (arm64) > macOS r-oldrel (arm64) > macOS r-release (x86_64) > but we do have two oldrel releases. Weirder still we have results for > macOS r-release (x86_64) even when the binary is not listed. > > There is nothing tricky in the package or it dependencies. Could you > provide > an update of what should and can be expected in the macOS provision? Is > this > a matter of intra-CRAN syncing between your builder(s) and the Vienna site? > > Thanks as always, Dirk > > [1] https://cran.r-project.org/package=RcppInt64 > > -- > dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org > > __ > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel > -- email: aron.atk...@gmail.com home: http://gweep.net/~aron/ [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
[R-pkg-devel] Spelling of PDB in Package Description
Dear List Members, After resubmitting the updated version of the Rpdb package (2.3.1), the following Notes were generated: 1.) Spelling PDB https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/Rpdb_2.3.1_20230914_173458/Windows/00check.log https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/Rpdb_2.3.1_20230914_173458/Debian/00check.log The PDB stands for Protein Data Bank: http://www.wwpdb.org/documentation/file-format-content/format33/v3.3.html It should be the correct spelling (and was the same in the previous versions of the package). 2.) Small Sample PDB Files * checking for non-standard things in the check directory ... NOTE Found the following files/directories: ‘Rpdb.pdb’ There is a directory with 3 very small sample pdb-files. The directory was also present in the previous version. How should I proceed? Or did I miss something? Sincerely, Leonard __ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Spelling of PDB in Package Description
Regarding PDB, in Rd format it’s best to wrap that in an \acronym{} tag. See
section 2.3 of https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-exts.html#Marking-text
Avi
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 14, 2023, at 3:40 PM, Leonard Mada via R-package-devel
> wrote:
>
> Dear List Members,
>
> After resubmitting the updated version of the Rpdb package (2.3.1), the
> following Notes were generated:
>
> 1.) Spelling PDB
> https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/Rpdb_2.3.1_20230914_173458/Windows/00check.log
> https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/Rpdb_2.3.1_20230914_173458/Debian/00check.log
>
> The PDB stands for Protein Data Bank:
> http://www.wwpdb.org/documentation/file-format-content/format33/v3.3.html
>
> It should be the correct spelling (and was the same in the previous versions
> of the package).
>
> 2.) Small Sample PDB Files
> * checking for non-standard things in the check directory ...
> NOTE Found the following files/directories: ‘Rpdb.pdb’
>
> There is a directory with 3 very small sample pdb-files. The directory was
> also present in the previous version.
>
> How should I proceed? Or did I miss something?
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Leonard
>
> __
> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
[[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] Spelling of PDB in Package Description
The spellng is fine and not a problem.
For
* checking for non-standard things in the check directory ... NOTE
Found the following files/directories:
‘Rpdb.pdb’
You need to move this to ./inst or a subdirectory or, if data, consider
./extdata See Writing R Extensions.
Best,
Uwe Ligges
On 14.09.2023 22:06, Avraham Adler wrote:
Regarding PDB, in Rd format it’s best to wrap that in an \acronym{} tag. See
section 2.3 of https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-exts.html#Marking-text
Avi
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 14, 2023, at 3:40 PM, Leonard Mada via R-package-devel
wrote:
Dear List Members,
After resubmitting the updated version of the Rpdb package (2.3.1), the
following Notes were generated:
1.) Spelling PDB
https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/Rpdb_2.3.1_20230914_173458/Windows/00check.log
https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/Rpdb_2.3.1_20230914_173458/Debian/00check.log
The PDB stands for Protein Data Bank:
http://www.wwpdb.org/documentation/file-format-content/format33/v3.3.html
It should be the correct spelling (and was the same in the previous versions of
the package).
2.) Small Sample PDB Files
* checking for non-standard things in the check directory ...
NOTE Found the following files/directories: ‘Rpdb.pdb’
There is a directory with 3 very small sample pdb-files. The directory was also
present in the previous version.
How should I proceed? Or did I miss something?
Sincerely,
Leonard
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
[[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
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Spelling of PDB in Package Description
Dear Uwe,
I found out what is going on. There is an example:
## Write the pdb object in file "Rpdb.pdb" into the current directory
write.pdb(pdb, file = "Rpdb.pdb")
The example was present in the previous version as well. So I did not
thought about it. I do not know how to handle this: although the example
should probably remain.
Sincerely,
Leonard
On 9/15/2023 12:27 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
The spellng is fine and not a problem.
For
* checking for non-standard things in the check directory ... NOTE
Found the following files/directories:
‘Rpdb.pdb’
You need to move this to ./inst or a subdirectory or, if data,
consider ./extdata See Writing R Extensions.
Best,
Uwe Ligges
On 14.09.2023 22:06, Avraham Adler wrote:
Regarding PDB, in Rd format it’s best to wrap that in an \acronym{}
tag. See section 2.3 of
https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-exts.html#Marking-text
Avi
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 14, 2023, at 3:40 PM, Leonard Mada via R-package-devel
wrote:
Dear List Members,
After resubmitting the updated version of the Rpdb package (2.3.1),
the following Notes were generated:
1.) Spelling PDB
https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/Rpdb_2.3.1_20230914_173458/Windows/00check.log
https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/Rpdb_2.3.1_20230914_173458/Debian/00check.log
The PDB stands for Protein Data Bank:
http://www.wwpdb.org/documentation/file-format-content/format33/v3.3.html
It should be the correct spelling (and was the same in the previous
versions of the package).
2.) Small Sample PDB Files
* checking for non-standard things in the check directory ...
NOTE Found the following files/directories: ‘Rpdb.pdb’
There is a directory with 3 very small sample pdb-files. The
directory was also present in the previous version.
How should I proceed? Or did I miss something?
Sincerely,
Leonard
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
[[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
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Spelling of PDB in Package Description
On 14.09.2023 23:35, Leonard Mada wrote:
Dear Uwe,
I found out what is going on. There is an example:
## Write the pdb object in file "Rpdb.pdb" into the current directory
write.pdb(pdb, file = "Rpdb.pdb")
In examples, you should write to tempdir(), if at all.
Best,
Uwe Ligges
The example was present in the previous version as well. So I did not
thought about it. I do not know how to handle this: although the example
should probably remain.
Sincerely,
Leonard
On 9/15/2023 12:27 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
The spellng is fine and not a problem.
For
* checking for non-standard things in the check directory ... NOTE
Found the following files/directories:
‘Rpdb.pdb’
You need to move this to ./inst or a subdirectory or, if data,
consider ./extdata See Writing R Extensions.
Best,
Uwe Ligges
On 14.09.2023 22:06, Avraham Adler wrote:
Regarding PDB, in Rd format it’s best to wrap that in an \acronym{}
tag. See section 2.3 of
https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-exts.html#Marking-text
Avi
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 14, 2023, at 3:40 PM, Leonard Mada via R-package-devel
wrote:
Dear List Members,
After resubmitting the updated version of the Rpdb package (2.3.1),
the following Notes were generated:
1.) Spelling PDB
https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/Rpdb_2.3.1_20230914_173458/Windows/00check.log
https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/Rpdb_2.3.1_20230914_173458/Debian/00check.log
The PDB stands for Protein Data Bank:
http://www.wwpdb.org/documentation/file-format-content/format33/v3.3.html
It should be the correct spelling (and was the same in the previous
versions of the package).
2.) Small Sample PDB Files
* checking for non-standard things in the check directory ...
NOTE Found the following files/directories: ‘Rpdb.pdb’
There is a directory with 3 very small sample pdb-files. The
directory was also present in the previous version.
How should I proceed? Or did I miss something?
Sincerely,
Leonard
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
[[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
