[Rd] R 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 both fail their test suites

[Duncan Murdoch]

On 03/11/2014, 4:17 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
>>>>>> Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>
>>>>>>     on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 13:17:56 -0400 writes:
> 
>     > On 01/11/2014, 11:33 AM, Peter Simons wrote:
>     >> Hi Uwe,
>     >> 
>     >> > Nobody in R core runs NixOS and can reproduce
>     >> this. This passes on most > other platforms,
>     >> apparently. If you can point us to a problem or send >
>     >> patches, we'd appreciate it.
>     >> 
>     >> have tried running the test suite in a build that's
>     >> configured with '--without-recommended-packages'? That's
>     >> about the only unusual thing we do when building with
>     >> Nix. Other than that, our build runs on a perfectly
>     >> ordinary Linux -- and it used to succeed fine in earlier
>     >> versions of R.
> 
>     > The tests "make check-devel" and "make check-all" are
>     > documented to require the recommended packages, and will
>     > fail without them.  On Windows, "make check" also needs
>     > them, so this may be true on other systems as well.
> 
> Thank you Duncan, for clarifying (above and later in the thread).
> 
> Would it be hard to strive for
> 
>     1)  'make check' should pass without-rec....
>     2)  'make check-devel' etc do require the recommended packages.
> 
> That would be ideal I think - and correspond to the fact that
> we call the recommended packages 'recommended' only.

I think we could avoid errors in make check, but not warnings.  People
need to understand what the tests are testing, and recognize that some
warnings are ignorable.

To do this, we'd need to make sure that no examples in base packages
require the use of recommended packages.  Currently the failure happens
in capture.output, because it runs the glm example which needs MASS.
(The glm example is marked not to need MASS during testing, but the
capture.output example runs everything.)  Fixing that one causes the
error to happen later.


> OTOH, if '1)' is too much work for us, we could add this as a
>       'wishlist' item  and wait for someone to send patches..

Alternatively, we could require the recommended packages for all tests.

Duncan Murdoch

Duncan Murdoch