[Rd] Building Packages on Windows using .Rbuildignore (PR#7379)
murdoch at stats.uwo.ca
Fri Nov 19 13:11:24 CET 2004
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:32:25 +0100, Martin Maechler
<maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
>>>>>> "Duncan" == Duncan Murdoch <murdoch at stats.uwo.ca>
>>>>>> on Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:36:03 +0100 (CET) writes:
> Duncan> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 00:38:47 +0000 (UTC), Gabor
> Duncan> Grothendieck <ggrothendieck at myway.com> wrote :
> >> DIFFERENCE BETWEEN USING .RBUILDIGNORE AND NOT
> >> The reason that the processing is different according to
> >> whether one uses .Rbuildignore or not is that R CMD build
> >> takes the .Rbuildignore file into account but R CMD
> >> install R CMD check R CMD build --binary do not take
> >> .Rbuildignore into account.
> Duncan> Okay, now I understand. I think I'd call the last
> Duncan> of those a bug, and it would seem to me that the
> Duncan> install and check scripts should also respect this
> Duncan> directive. I've now copied this to the r-bugs list.
> Duncan> (This was reported for Windows; I don't know if it
> Duncan> applies to other platforms as well.)
>Yes it does (*), but I think it is NOT a bug but a feature,
>at least for "check" and "install" (*)
>and very much desired in some cases :
>For instance, the package developer may want more
>regression tests in <Pkg>/tests/ :
>1) Have extra *.Rout.save files that are architecture
> dependent and hence not for general distribution of the
> package, but important for the package developer in order to
> assure that functionality doesn't change when the package is
> extended, reorganized, ....
>2) Have more tests/*.R files that take a long time to run.
> Time that the package developer wants to spend, but doesn't
> dare to put on the daily CRAN or Bioconductor test suites.
>3) similarly for vignettes
>4) similar issues for experimental R/*.R files or man/*.Rd
> files for these.
>One I thing that would be quite useful and would even solve
>The introduction of a new command line switch, say "--build-ignore",
>to the commands 'R CMD check' and 'R CMD install'
Shouldn't that option be "--ignore-build-ignore"? :-)
More seriously: I suspect that an on/off switch for the .Rbuildignore
file wouldn't be sufficiently flexible: the same package author might
want different things at different times, e.g. building a binary for
Windows would include different files than a binary for another
platform. We could put together some sort of system of conditionals
within the .Rbuildignore file, but I think it would be better to just
advise such package writers to maintain one or more .Rbuildignore.in
files, and manually (or by makefile) copy the appropriate one in place
>(*) I do agree that "R CMD build --binary" probably really should
> follow the ".Rbuildignore" file ``directives'' if it doesn't
More information about the R-devel