[R-pkg-devel] Two problems with fda

[Avraham Adler]

Hello, Spencer.

I am solely on Windows, so I am not familiar with the workflow you
need, but I have found the following posts which discuss tlmgr in the
context of a Github action. Perhaps they can provide you with insight:
[1], [2].

Hope that helps!

Avi

[1] https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/551383/cant-run-tex-lives-tlmgr-in-a-github-action
[2] https://github.com/xu-cheng/texlive-action

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 2:28 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan using gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 28/04/2022 10:17 a.m., Spencer Graves wrote:
> > Hi, Duncan et al.:
> >
> >
> >         I passed Duncan's suggestions to Jim Ramsay, who implemented
> > something -- not sure what -- and "fda_6.0.3.tar.gz has been built for
> > Windows and will be published within 24 hours in the corresponding CRAN
> > directory"!  (Thanks, Duncan!)
>
> You're welcome.
>
> >         My attempts to fix ".github/workflows/R-CMD-check.yaml" have so far
> > been unsuccessful:
> >
> >
> > https://github.com/JamesRamsay5/fda/commit/3dd1938d95055ed798a8b6caebcfe0eb8a03668b
>
> Line 50 in that update looks wrong.  It might make sense to have "tlmgr
> --version" just after line 53, indented like lines 54 and 55.
>
> Duncan Murdoch
>
> >
> >         For me currently, yaml = "yet another misunderstood language" ;-)
> > And I've misplaced Yihui Xie's recommendations on how to ask for help.
> > I remember he suggested submitting a question first to Stack Exchange or
> > Stack Overflow or ..., but I can't find those recommendations, so I
> > thought I'd here thank Avraham Adler <avraham.adler using gmail.com> and
> > everyone else who has considered replying to this question, hoping that
> > someone can help me take the next step.
> >
> >
> >         Thanks again,
> >         Spencer Graves
> >
> >
> > On 4/26/22 11:46 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> >> On 25/04/2022 8:24 p.m., Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> >>    ...
> >>>
> >>> \value{
> >>>      These functions return either a standard \code{fRegress} fit
> >>> object or
> >>>      or a model specification:
> >>>      \item{The \code{fRegress} fit object case:}{
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Aha, in a \value{} section, bare \items are supposed to mark components
> >>> of the value, so they are automatically code.  I think the fix for this
> >>> is to make it an explicit \describe list:
> >>>
> >>> \value{
> >>>      These functions return either a standard \code{fRegress} fit
> >>> object or
> >>>      or a model specification:
> >>>      \describe{
> >>>        \item{The \code{fRegress} fit object case:}{
> >>>
> >>>      ... eventually ...
> >>>
> >>>      }
> >>
> >> An even simpler fix:  don't mark the section title as an \item, i.e.
> >> write as
> >>
> >> \value{
> >>      These functions return either a standard \code{fRegress} fit object or
> >>      or a model specification.
> >>
> >>      The \code{fRegress} fit object case:
> >>
> >>
> >>      \item{field}{description .... }
> >>
> >>
> >> Duncan Murdoch
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel