[Bioc-devel] Updated check results page
sfalcon at fhcrc.org
Fri Nov 11 17:47:26 CET 2005
On 11 Nov 2005, stvjc at channing.harvard.edu wrote:
> Hi, I've finally had a look at this. It's very impressive.
> A few comments
> 1) indexing the tables by hostname is peculiar to me. i can
> look up the hostname or i can learn the right to left sequence,
> but i would prefer something qualitative: linux 64, linux 32,
> sparc, windows 64? if i need to know details i can look in the
That's a good point.
> 2) MISSING is a strange tag -- in general, it would be good for
> the page to give an indicator of when the developer should
> do something to get a more favorable status; edd is MISSING
> for lemming, but i don't know how to make it OK
That is what we are aiming for and perhaps ERROR would suffice. One
can receive WARNINGS on R CMD build and still get a tarball. Can one
get ERROR messages and still get a (usable) tarball?
The MISSING label indicates that no tarball was produced from R CMD
For the case of edd, there is info when you click:
Looks like a build system issue where we've run out of tempdirs :-(
> 3) Purely for the convenience of authors of multiple packages,
> it would be good to put the author name somewhere on the page, maybe
> in the rightmost column so that one can do browser finds
Another good point that Jeff also raised. We will add maintainer
> as for A vs B -- i find that the distinction of BUILD BIN is
> more prominent in B and again i don't know what the developer should
> do for a package whose BUILD BIN status on windows differs from
> its CHECK status there. i prefer A but not strongly.
> so perhaps there could be some descriptive text accessible via
> linked at the top (e.g., what to do if your package is not OK)
> which gives general suggestions on how to improve status
Good idea. Perhaps a Bioconductor package bug fixing How To. Are you
volunteering to draft something ;-)
Thanks for the useful feedback.
More information about the Bioc-devel