[R-pkg-devel] NOTE in r-devel-linux-x86_64-fedora-clang

[Duncan Murdoch]

On 07/08/2020 6:53 p.m., Helmut Schütz wrote:
> Hi Duncan,
> 
> Duncan Murdoch wrote on 2020-08-07 21:55:
>> On 07/08/2020 3:22 p.m., Helmut Schütz wrote:
>>> I see. However, the HTML-source states
>>> This manual is for R, version 4.1.0 Under development (2020-08-06).
>>>
>>> I was relying on the PDF-version (4.0.2 of 2020-06-22) which does *not*
>>> contain this sentence. Hence, I fell into the trap. Should be stated in
>>> the PDF as well, IMHO.
>>
>> Oh, c'mon.  It will be a new requirement in R 4.1.0  It's not a
>> requirement in 4.0.2, and you didn't get a NOTE about it there, you
>> only got the note in one of the r-devel platforms.
> 
> Yep, but why are the others not configured in the same way (with setenv
> _R_CHECK_SUGGESTS_ONLY_ false)? Doesn't sound consistent to me.

What has this got to do with your suggestion that changes that will be 
released in R 4.1.0 next year should be documented in R 4.0.2?

Duncan Murdoch

> 
>> The general way things work in R is that changes get announced well in
>> advance of release *by putting them in R-devel*.  That's why you're
>> asked to check your package against R-devel before submitting:  so
>> that it meets upcoming announced changes to requirements as well as
>> ones that are in the current release.
> 
> Of course, we checked the package on winbuilder... Are you suggesting to
> set up a multi-boot system for all those OSs? Even if one -- not us --
> would aim at that: Where to get Solaris v10? Buy a Mac to run checks on
> maxOS?
> 
> At least I understand now the differences between
> r-devel-linux-x86_64-debian-gcc and r-devel-linux-x86_64-debian-gcc
> (given in the last line there:
> https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/bdr/Rconfig/r-devel-linux-x86_64-fedora-gcc).
> 
> Helmut
>