Duncan, the changes to symbols checking was introduced March 22nd see
https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18789 and
https://developer.r-project.org/blosxom.cgi/R-devel/NEWS/2025/03/22#n2025-03-22.
But that is unrelated.
To Tim's comment—the check is a simple grep of the installation log for
Just for fun I forked rcmdcheck and added arguments to it to allow
particular messages to be changed in severity.
For example, if the WARNING message says something which matches the
regexp "Compiled code should not call entry points which might terminate
R" you could run
rcmdcheck::rcmdch
On 2025-03-19 12:49 p.m., Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel wrote:
In response to the tidyverse habit of adding another zillion functions to one's
search space, the use of things like survival::coxph is becoming more common.
But this practice breaks the use of the specials argument in term
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 8:55 AM Martin Maechler
wrote:
>
> > Martin Maechler
> > on Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:49:16 +0100 writes:
>
> > Henrik Bengtsson
> > on Thu, 20 Mar 2025 11:55:05 -0700 writes:
>
> >>> I'm pretty convinced we should fix it by checking for
> >>> prim
> Colin Gillespie writes:
>> I'm surprised this wasn't captured by the url checker on CRAN.
> As was I
>> Are you suggesting a new check on package descriptions for the urls present?
> Yes - but more fixing edge cases than a new check
>> In that case I guess it could be part of the standard
> I'm surprised this wasn't captured by the url checker on CRAN.
As was I
> Are you suggesting a new check on package descriptions for the urls present?
Yes - but more fixing edge cases than a new check
> In that case I guess it could be part of the standard R CMD check.
Yep. Kurt's message sugg
