[Rd] Problem building (binary) packages for Windows

[Peter Ruckdeschel]

Dear Brian, Martin, and Uwe,

thanks for your explanations; I have already replied to you in another
mail; so I would only like to add some points here.

On Sat, 16 May 2009, Martin Maechler wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 2009, Martin Maechler wrote:
>
>>>>>>> "UweL" == Uwe Ligges <ligges at statistik.tu-dortmund.de>
>>>>>>>     on Fri, 15 May 2009 20:48:03 +0200 writes:
>>
>> [.............]
>>
>>    >> Thank you for clarifying this and once again apologies for
>> stirring you
>>    >> up with something that had been fixed in the mean-time already.
>>
>>    UweL> For R-devel, it is in the svn logs. Since it may change
>> again, NEWS is
>>    UweL> not always edited while things are tested.
>>
>> well, and if a new feature is introduced, it gets a NEWS entry
>> (hopefully), but if the new feature contains bugs, these will be
>> fixed of course with*OUT* another NEWS entry.
>>
>> Indeed, the NEWS apply to (eventually) released versions of R,
>> so fixing transient bugs is *never* documented in NEWS.
>>
>> ... leading us back to what Brian already said:
>>  >>  'Under development' needs to be taken seriously.
>
> This was a Windows-only issue, so the final version was reported in the
> May 1 entry in src/gnuwin32/CHANGES, not NEWS:
>
>     o   Rcmd INSTALL --build in 2.9.0 did not make _bundles_ in the
>         format install.packages() expected.
Touché:  I have not been aware of this; and at first glance I would
not have seen the connection to the double DESCRIPTION file
either; sorry for this.
> [When I looked that was missing from the RSS feed for R-devel, so perhaps
> another message is to look at the NEWS/CHANGES files directly.]
Point taken; see also my other reply to all of you.
> As far as I can see from the svn logs, the first attempt at a fix was
> on April 25
> and that was changed to the more successful current solution on April
> 27 (well over two
> weeks ago, _pace_ claims earlier in the thread).
Obviously, my fault was not to look into the CHANGES and the svn log
files.

Actually, looking through the svn logs, I have now spotted the changes 
in r48400 to have caused the double DESCRIPTION file I was complaining
about in my initial posting (in a non-bundle package, btw).
This effect must have survived until r48404, the revision that I was using
when posting the initial question.

So once again: Sorry for taking your time with this
unnecessary posting --- hopefully I have learnt my lesson.

Best, Peter