[Rd] checking for executable files ... WARNING

[hadley wickham]

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Prof Brian Ripley
<ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, hadley wickham wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Prof Brian Ripley
>> <ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, hadley wickham wrote:
>>>
>>>> In R 2.8. I get the following warning when checking my package:
>>>>
>>>> * checking for executable files ... WARNING
>>>> Found the following executable file(s):
>>>>  .git/objects/00/12947a4bb4379fb0c3bed740314a9f4ac72331
>>>>  .git/objects/00/21fac22a57a1567389ed34a9dc4f465c6cfd01
>>>>  .git/objects/00/29da5c289489fdb2249e19f4b165ff5b37b3e6
>>>>  .git/objects/00/36ad7f586eeac250e6609a1bf938e545101cb0
>>>> ... (for about 300 lines)
>>>>
>>>> I've tried putting .git in my .Rbuildignore, but this doesn't help the
>>>> problem.  Any ideas?
>>>
>>> Does 'R CMD build' a tarball and then 'R CMD check' not solve this?
>>> 'build' skips git files, and you only need to worry about executables in
>>> a
>>> tarball you ship.
>>
>> Is this suggested best practice now?
>
> Always was, AFAIK.

I might be useful to make this more explicit in "Writing R
extensions".  A sentence at the start of 1.3.1 "checking packages"
would be helpful, as would removing this sentence from 1.3.2:

"Run-time checks whether the package works correctly should be
performed using R CMD check prior to invoking the build procedure."

and strengthening the recommendation in this sentence:

"It can be useful to run R CMD check --check-subdirs=yes on the built
tarball as a final check on the contents."

You didn't mention "--check-subdirs=yes" and I see from R CMD CHECK
--help that yes is now the default, so perhaps that could be removed
too.

Hadley

-- 
http://had.co.nz/