On 26 February 2024 at 09:19, Simon Urbanek wrote:
| [requiring increased is] best way [..] and certainly the only good practice.
No, not really. Another viewpoint, which is implemented in another project I
contribute to, is where a version + build_revision tuple exists if, and only
if, the unde
To quote Rob: "Version numbers are cheap"
The way the policy is worded it is clear that you cannot complain if you didn't
increase it as you are taking a risk. Also the the incoming FTP won't let you
upload same version twice so it wasn't really a problem until more recently
when there are mult
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:19:41 -0600
Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 23 February 2024 at 15:53, Leo Mada wrote:
> | Dear Dirk & R-Members,
> |
> | It seems that the version number is not incremented:
> | # Archived
> | arrow_14.0.2.1.tar.gz 2024-02-08 11:57 3.9M
> | # Pending
> | arrow_14.0.
On 23 February 2024 at 15:53, Leo Mada wrote:
| Dear Dirk & R-Members,
|
| It seems that the version number is not incremented:
| # Archived
| arrow_14.0.2.1.tar.gz 2024-02-08 11:57 3.9M
| # Pending
| arrow_14.0.2.1.tar.gz 2024-02-08 18:24 3.9M
|
| Maybe this is the reason why it got stuc
Dear Dirk & R-Members,
It seems that the version number is not incremented:
# Archived
arrow_14.0.2.1.tar.gz 2024-02-08 11:57 3.9M
# Pending
arrow_14.0.2.1.tar.gz 2024-02-08 18:24 3.9M
Maybe this is the reason why it got stuck in "pending".
Regarding such issues: maybe CRAN should warn if
On 22 February 2024 at 04:01, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
| For you to deal with this, you should make arrow into a suggested
| package,
For what it is worth, that is exactly what package tiledb does.
Yet the Suggests: still lead to a NOTE requiring a human to override which
did not happen until I g
: Dénes Tóth
> Date: Thursday, February 22, 2024 at 6:47 AM
> To: Duncan Murdoch , Park, Sung Jae <
> spa...@ufl.edu>, r-package-devel@r-project.org <
> r-package-devel@r-project.org>
> Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Package required but not available: ‘arrow’
> [External Em
From: Dénes Tóth
Date: Thursday, February 22, 2024 at 6:47 AM
To: Duncan Murdoch , Park, Sung Jae ,
r-package-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Package required but not available: ‘arrow’
[External Email]
Depending on your use case you can also take a look at the nanoarrow
package
Depending on your use case you can also take a look at the nanoarrow
package (https://cran.r-project.org/package=nanoarrow). Maybe it
provides all the features you need and has a much smaller footprint than
'arrow'.
Best,
Denes
On 2/22/24 10:01, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
If you look on the CRAN
This error indicates that the arrow package is unavailable on the system
where your package is checked. At
https://cran.r-project.org/web/checks/check_results_arrow.html you can
see that the arrow package is currently not working with clang on fedora
an debian. This is not something that you ca
If you look on the CRAN check results for arrow, you'll see it has
errors on the Linux platforms that use clang, and can't be installed there.
For you to deal with this, you should make arrow into a suggested
package, and if it is missing, work around that without generating an
error. Another
Hi,
I’m writing to seek assistance regarding an issue we’re encountering during the
submission process of our new package to CRAN.
The package in question is currently working smoothly on R CMD check on
Windows; however, we are facing a specific error when running R CMD check on
Debian. The err
12 matches
Mail list logo
