[Rd] NAMESPACE file generation issue R 2.14.0 on Debian Squeeze

[Uwe Ligges]

On 09.11.2011 13:52, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> 2011/11/8 Uwe Ligges<ligges at statistik.tu-dortmund.de>:
>>
>>
>> On 08.11.2011 19:08, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>>
>>> 2011/11/8 Uwe Ligges<ligges at statistik.tu-dortmund.de>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 08.11.2011 17:56, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2011/11/8 Uwe Ligges<ligges at statistik.tu-dortmund.de>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 08.11.2011 17:04, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2011/11/8 Uwe Ligges<ligges at statistik.tu-dortmund.de>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 08.11.2011 16:31, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2011/11/8 Uwe Ligges<ligges at statistik.tu-dortmund.de>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think many people like to help, but we cannot:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You say you are under R-2.14.0 and whn you R CMD INSTALL a package
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> version of R, it does not have a NAMESPACE in the end?
>>>>>>>>>> Then
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   - your R installation is broken or
>>>>>>>>>>   - you are looking into a library where you have old versios of the
>>>>>>>>>> packages
>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>   - you belive you are using R-2.14.0 but you are actually using an
>>>>>>>>>> older
>>>>>>>>>> version.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is even reproduced on CRAN.  All platforms work except one:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://cran.r-project.org/web/checks/check_results_sqldf.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, that one is completely unrelated (and already solved, but not yet
>>>>>>>> synced
>>>>>>>> to CRAN master) to the original question you have removed in your
>>>>>>>> reply.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK.  One would have thought that the checks on CRAN would be
>>>>>>> consistent with the package pages which link to them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I only see consistent information on that page.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you go to:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/sqldf/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> then the tar.gz file was created using R-2.14.0 but if you then click
>>>>> on the  check results  link on the same page it takes you to this:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes. the tar.gz was created with R-2.14.0.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://cran.r-project.org/web/checks/check_results_sqldf.html
>>>>>
>>>>> On the last link on that page it says ERROR and if click on that it
>>>>> takes you to the output of the check which reveals that it was run
>>>>> with R 2.13.2.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, ince it is checked with different flavors of R, R-oldrelease,
>>>> R-release, R-devel. See the first column!
>>>>
>>>> A source package can be created with an version of R and checked under
>>>> another version. There is onlyone source package on CRAN, but - just as
>>>> an
>>>> exmaple - binaries for R-2.13.x and R-2.14.x. Of course, the checks are
>>>> applied with the versions stated on the check page. I think you haven't
>>>> got
>>>> the whole point of checking with different versions of R.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The Version column on check_results_sqldf.html page refers to the
>>>>> package's version, not the R version.  To get the R version you must
>>>>> know to click on each link.
>>>>
>>>> No, no, no, no! See the first column!
>>>> It definitely states if R-olrelease, R-release, R-pacthed or R-devel is
>>>> used!
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK. That wasn't clear. It would be better if it actually identified
>>> the release as R 2.13.2, etc.
>>
>> We do not want to change those fields daily: R-devel and R-patched typically
>> change from day to day - and then things will really become inconsistent in
>> some place.
>>
>
> The inconsistencies are less important if they are obvious but more
> important if they are not.
>
> How about indicating R-2.14.0 but not the (2011-09-30 r57179) part.

Honestly, that (svn revision) is the only part that we do not have on 
the front pages but they are given in the log files.

Uwe


> That only changes a few times a year.
>
> Also it would be helpful if the R version number that was used to
> build the .tar.gz file
> and the .zip file were shown right on the
> package's CRAN page.


> This entire discussion and all the associated confusion probably would
> not have occurred since it would be much clearer which versions were
> involved.
>