Re: [R-pkg-devel] cmake_path on r-*-macos-arm64

2025-03-22 Thread Uwe Ligges



On 22.03.2025 09:52, matthias-gon...@gmx.de wrote:

Dear CRAN people, and R package developers,



since the last update, the CRAN tests of my package for r-*-macos-arm64
complain about the use of a function called cmake_path, which according to
docs has been introduced in cmake 3.20 in 2021 (?). Is it an option to
update cmake on the respective test machines? I understand if it's
not-sometimes it makes sense to keep compatibility. I will search for an
alternative then.


Please ask the Mac maintainer, Simon Urbanek.

Best,
Uwe Ligges





https://cran.r-project.org/web/checks/check_results_rswipl.html



Best wishes,



Matthias


[[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] How and where do I document sysdata.rda

2025-03-22 Thread Michael Dewey

Dear Charles

I agree and in fact that was in the back of my mind when I started this. 
I felt I should document it even though the chances of anyone wanting to 
access it still less edit it were almost indistinguishable from zero. I 
am reluctant to use a suggestion like yours as then I will have 
documentation created in diferent ways and that raises the possibility 
that they may interact


I have had a number of useful hints in the answers to my original 
question and I think I see a way forward. I will report back when I have 
digested them.


Michael

On 20/03/2025 23:50, Charles Plessy wrote:

Le Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 12:56:49PM -0400, Kevin R. Coombes a écrit :

If it is *only *in sysdata.Rda, then it is accessible to your package
code but is not available to users. (They can't, for example, use the
"data" function to load it themselves.) So, there is no reason to
document it.


Hello Kevin and Michael,

Users who care about software provenance, security and software freedom would
love to see it documented, because binary objects are hard to audit when there
is no description of what they are expected to contain.

Redistributors who give guarantees to their users about software freedom, like
Debian, also want to see that these objects are easy to modify in case of need
(that is: the developer does not keep some secret receipes about how the object
is made to keep an advantage against forks and other forms of competition), and
to be able to check by themselves that they were not built from data that is
not placed under too restrictive terms.

When I write R packages and when I reeistribute CRAN/Bioconductor pakcages in
Debian, I find that the way documented in the R Packages book (./data-raw/,
usethis::use_data(), etc.) fits my needs very well.

Have a nice day,

Charles

--
Charles Plessy Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan
Debian Med packaging team http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tooting from home  https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy
- You  do not have  my permission  to use  this email  to train  an AI -


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


--
Michael Dewey

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


[R-pkg-devel] cmake_path on r-*-macos-arm64

2025-03-22 Thread matthias-gondan
Dear CRAN people, and R package developers,



since the last update, the CRAN tests of my package for r-*-macos-arm64
complain about the use of a function called cmake_path, which according to
docs has been introduced in cmake 3.20 in 2021 (?). Is it an option to
update cmake on the respective test machines? I understand if it's
not-sometimes it makes sense to keep compatibility. I will search for an
alternative then.



https://cran.r-project.org/web/checks/check_results_rswipl.html



Best wishes,



Matthias


[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

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