Simply resubmit such a package, we will lookninto the details and the
team will decide.
Best,
Uwe Ligges
On 18.03.2019 17:28, brodie gaslam wrote:
I believe your first point makes the alternate workflow below illegal,
but the subsequent ones add just enough ambiguity that I'd like to makes
s
On 18.03.2019 17:28, brodie gaslam wrote:
I believe your first point makes the alternate workflow below illegal,
but the subsequent ones add just enough ambiguity that I'd like to makes
sure. How about:
0. Only during the running of tests
1. Create a temporary directory tmplib using tempfi
--- Begin Message ---
I believe your first point makes the alternate workflow below illegal, but the
subsequent ones add just enough ambiguity that I'd like to makes sure. How
about:
0. Only during the running of tests
1. Create a temporary directory tmplib using tempfile()/dircreate().
2. Inst
1. You should never install packages without asking the user.
2. a package should never write to the user file space or default
libraries unless the user akss for it explicitly.
In tests, use tempdir().
3. You cannot expect that the library is writeable. It is not in many
network installation
--- Begin Message ---
Sorry, previous e-mail got pre-maturely sent due to fat finger...
My package unitizer[1] has recently gained the following type of error:
Warning in install.packages(pkg, repos = NULL, type = "src") : 'lib =
"/home/hornik/tmp/R.check/r-devel-clang/Work/build/Packages
pending means a team member has to do a closer inspection and needs more
time while waiting means user reactions, this is a recent change since
we wrote the publication you cited.
Best,
Uwe Ligges
On 15.03.2019 18:51, Staudacher, Jochen, Prof. Dr. wrote:
Dear colleagues,
I submitted a new
--- Begin Message ---
My package unitizer has recently gained a new set of errors that look like:
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
--- End Message ---
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-pack
