[R-pkg-devel] puzzling CRAN rejection

[Ben Bolker]

On 10/12/20 4:34 PM, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> You are right. I was too fast and didn't read "last released version".
> Then the only suspicious thing I see is:
> 
> Overall checktime 23 min > 10 min

   I agree that's unfortunate, but it doesn't seem grounds for summary 
rejection ... ?  (CRAN policy says "Checking the package should take as 
little CPU time as possible".)  You may be right: it does seem to be _de 
facto_ policy that any NOTE is grounds for rejection.  On the other 
hand, this package has had NOTEs about 'installed size is <large>" for a 
long time, which hasn't been grounds for rejection.

   cheers
    Ben Bolker


> 
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 22:25, Ben Bolker <bbolker using gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>     Thanks, but I don't think that's the problem because:
>>
>>      (1) Those are reported as being from the last released version, not
>> this one.
>>      (2) As far as I can tell from my local tests, I'm pretty sure I've
>> fixed these issues in the current release.
>>      (3) In my experience UBSAN tests don't generally get re-run for a
>> while after the initial CRAN testing anyway ...
>>
>>     cheers
>>       Ben
>>
>>
>> On 10/12/20 4:23 PM, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 22:04, Ben Bolker <bbolker using gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      Before I risk wasting the CRAN maintainers' time with a query, can
>>>> anyone see what I'm missing here?  Everything I can see looks OK, with
>>>> the possible exception of the 'NA' result for "CRAN incoming
>>>> feasibility" on r-devel-windows-ix86+x86_64 (which surely isn't my fault???)
>>>>
>>>>      Any help appreciated, as always.
>>>>
>>>>      Ben Bolker
>>>
>>> There are UBSAN issues:
>>>
>>>> Last released version's additional issues:
>>>>      gcc-UBSAN <https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/bdr/memtests/gcc-UBSAN/lme4>
>>>
> 
> 
>