I have had no problems recently (having updated a pkg or two with this over
the last couple of weeks). Your question is not reproducible so its hard to
help...
best,
Mark
Op wo 21 jun. 2017 om 23:46 schreef Simon Barthelmé <
simon.barthe...@gipsa-lab.fr>:
> Dear list,
>
> Is anybody else having
> Mark van der Loo
> on Thu, 22 Jun 2017 07:33:49 + writes:
> I have had no problems recently (having updated a pkg or two with this
over
> the last couple of weeks). Your question is not reproducible so its hard
to
> help...
> best,
> Mark
> Op wo 21 j
> Martin Maechler
> on Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:57:41 +0200 writes:
> Mark van der Loo
> on Thu, 22 Jun 2017 07:33:49 + writes:
>> I have had no problems recently (having updated a pkg or two with this
over
>> the last couple of weeks). Your question is not repro
Hello,
I would like to ask for your help. I want to contribute a package and fail
because of two Notes. Here is the temporary directory:
https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/170621_173212_IncDTW_010/
The first Note asks for spelling mistakes, which is a false positive. "DTW"
means
On 22.06.2017 10:47, Maximilian Leodolter wrote:
Hello,
I would like to ask for your help. I want to contribute a package and fail
because of two Notes. Here is the temporary directory:
https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/170621_173212_IncDTW_010/
The first Note asks for spell
Dear Martin
OK, thanks, I see now. Yes, a warning saying that all symbols have been
properly registered already would be easier to understand, I think. You
might want to generate the output anyway, it can't hurt!
Best
Simon
On 22/06/2017 10:41, Martin Maechler wrote:
Martin Maechler
This should be resolved in general now.
Best,
Uwe Ligges
On 03.06.2017 15:51, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 3 June 2017 at 08:30, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| On 27 May 2017 at 22:18, Emmanuel Blondel wrote:
| | Dear Uwe, i clearly understand the CRAN team needs time on this. I have
| | no pro
On 22 June 2017 at 16:36, Uwe Ligges wrote:
| This should be resolved in general now.
I appreciate your work on this, as well Gabor's help in providing new binaries.
But correct me here if I wrong: It still does not help with this issue as
long as _any other pandoc binary_ is called, correct?
So, along these lines, I was thinking if we could / should build a
pandoc R package, that could just pull the right binary at install
time. Would that make sense? It is a bit unusual, but I think a lot of
users would like it, and it would help standardizing pandoc versions
and usage.
The static bi
On 22 June 2017 at 16:23, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
| So, along these lines, I was thinking if we could / should build a
| pandoc R package, that could just pull the right binary at install
| time. Would that make sense? It is a bit unusual, but I think a lot of
| users would like it, and it would help
On 22.06.2017 17:35, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 22 June 2017 at 16:23, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
| So, along these lines, I was thinking if we could / should build a
| pandoc R package, that could just pull the right binary at install
| time.
And drops it in the package? Then we cannot provide bin
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Uwe Ligges
wrote:
> On 22.06.2017 17:35, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22 June 2017 at 16:23, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
>> | So, along these lines, I was thinking if we could / should build a
>> | pandoc R package, that could just pull the right binary at install
12 matches
Mail list logo
