On 1/23/23 17:51, Ying Li via R-package-devel wrote:
Dear all,
Hope you are well! Recently, in the check before a re-submission, I got an unexpected note
when doing R CMD Check using rhub::check_for_cran(), saying that "Examples with CPU
(user + system) or elapsed time > 5s".
I didn't expect
Uri,
I can speak only for macOS package binaries and they have been rarely re-built.
The only time when a re-build is necessary is when a dependency is updated and
breaks its backward-compatibility (sadly, yes, that happens). It is relatively
rare, but recently Matrix was one example with reaso
On 1/22/23 22:36, Uri Simonsohn wrote:
This is not a perfect list for this question, but possibly a good list.
I think this is a good match.
I maintain 'groundhog', a package that seeks to simplify reproducibility
of R code based on R packages.
It has so far relied on MRAN for binaries of olde
On 24/01/2023 1:12 p.m., Ivan Krylov wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:33:10 +
Maxim Nazarov wrote:
this seems to come from the C code
I'm 99% sure this comes from the following changes to the package:
--- minpack.lm_1.2-2/src/fcn_message.c 2020-03-23 10:54:03.0 +0300
+++ minpack.l
Dear all,
Hope you are well! Recently, in the check before a re-submission, I got an
unexpected note when doing R CMD Check using rhub::check_for_cran(), saying
that "Examples with CPU (user + system) or elapsed time > 5s".
I didn't expect this note to appear because the same examples didn't ca
This is not a perfect list for this question, but possibly a good list.
I maintain 'groundhog', a package that seeks to simplify reproducibility
of R code based on R packages.
It has so far relied on MRAN for binaries of older/archived versions of
packages, but MRAN is shutting down.
Posit (R S
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:33:10 +
Maxim Nazarov wrote:
> this seems to come from the C code
I'm 99% sure this comes from the following changes to the package:
--- minpack.lm_1.2-2/src/fcn_message.c 2020-03-23 10:54:03.0 +0300
+++ minpack.lm_1.2-3/src/fcn_message.c 2023-01-17 09:30:05
I think that is likely bad luck, in that your package was being
evaluated at the same time as the new minpack.lm, and CRAN/winbuilder
don't isolate the builds. If you resubmit unchanged (I'd do this on
winbuilder, not CRAN) you may get a more reasonable outcome.
Duncan Murdoch
On 24/01/2023
Thank you, Tomas, for your insights!
I think I found the root cause of the problem - my package uses the `nlsLM`
function from the `minpack.lm` package and coincidentally the new version of
that package was submitted to CRAN recently.
Looking at
https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretes
