[R] Different missing links on Windows in 'check' vs. 'install'

[Prof Brian Ripley]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Duncan Murdoch wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 18:20:29 -0500 (EST), you wrote:
> 
> >In trying to figure out how these things are determiend, I noticed that in
> >Windows there was a difference in the reported missing links when one does
> >'Rcmd check' vs 'Rcmd install' (or 'Rcmd install --build').  In the
> >example above, using either of the 'install' methods results in that link
> >not being reported as missing (and if I put in an intentionally missing
> >link it gets picked up as such), but 'check' reports it as missing.  I'm
> >wondering what the difference in environment is between check & install on
> >Windows as that might help me to figure out why check reports these as
> >missing links.
> 
> This is something we should fix. I haven't checked the code, but I
> believe the rule is that check will only find links to base packages,
> but install will find links to any package installed on the system.

No, both will find links in the same library as installing into (plus
those which are fixed up on installation, e.g. to the base package).

Several of us have looked for years for a fix, and this is the best scheme 
we have come up with.  You can't put in absolute paths in the HTML as e.g. 
a private library may be used with more than one version of R (or R may be 
updated later).  Short of adding symbolic links to Windows (and getting 
browsers to follow them), how do you propose `we should fix' it?

-- 
Brian D. Ripley,                  ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk
Professor of Applied Statistics,  http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford,             Tel:  +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road,                     +44 1865 272866 (PA)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK                Fax:  +44 1865 272595