[R-pkg-devel] Matrix and Mac OS

Martin Maechler m@ech|er @end|ng |rom @t@t@m@th@ethz@ch
Wed Nov 1 10:06:59 CET 2023 

>>>>> Uwe Ligges 
>>>>>     on Wed, 1 Nov 2023 06:26:23 +0100 writes:

    > On 01.11.2023 03:51, Mikael Jagan wrote:
    >> Thanks.  It seems that we were mistaken in our feeling (IIRC) that it would
    >> be "OK" to implicitly require '--no-manual' on versions of R from 3.5.0 to
    >> 4.2.1, not changing our Depends.
    >> 
    >> We will fix this in Matrix 1.6-2, probably by conditionalizing or otherwise
    >> replacing the amsmath commands and probably _not_ by changing to depend on
    >> R >= 4.2.2.  Martin may have more to say in "the morning".

I agree (*not* to raise Matrix pkg's R version dependency).

    > Note that dependin on R >= 4.2.2 does not work. We need dependencies of 
    > the form R >= x.y.0. This is also part of the checks.

Yes, indeed.
And as we learned, R >= 4.2.0 would not help for r-oldrel-macos

I (am unhappy but) agree to take the responsibility for our
decision to go ahead and use much nicer LaTeX formula for
matrices etc, in our help pages {thinking that indeed people who'd
install Matrix on an old R version would always be able to read
Matrix manual pages via web search (as it seems to me 95% of
people do nowadays) ... or then have someone in their
organization to figure out how to use a newer amsmath (latex) package if
 they really really want the Matrix pdf manual offline}.

Martin

    > Reason is that we have only one binary repository for one R-x.y.? 
    > series. On WIndows, where we check with R-4.2.3, a binary would be 
    > created and hence R-4.2.[0-1] would not see any valid Matrix binaries.

    > So please either make this work on R >= 4.2.0 or require R >= 4.3.0. If 
    > the latter, ideally with an interim version that works for R >= 4.2.0, 
    > so that we valid binaries with correct dependency declarations again.

    > Best,
    > Uwe

    >> In the mean time (i.e., while we are stuck with Matrix 1.6-1.1), it may 
    >> help
    >> to update to R 4.2.3 on r-oldrel-macos-* and/or to have EdSurvey revert its
    >> strict version requirement, unless there are clear examples justifying one.
    >> 
    >> Mikael
    >> 
    >> 
    >> On 2023-10-31 8:17 pm, Simon Urbanek wrote:
    >>> Mikael,
    >>> 
    >>> in that case I think your requirements are wrong - Matrix says R >= 
    >>> 3.5.0 which is apparently incorrect - from what you say it should be 
    >>> 4.2.2?. I can certainly update to 4.2.3 if necessary.
    >>> 
    >>> Cheers,
    >>> Simon
    >>> 
    >>> 
    >>> 
    >>>> On 1/11/2023, at 9:19 AM, Mikael Jagan <jaganmn2 using gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>> 
    >>>> Thanks.  We did see those ERRORs, stemming from use (since Matrix 1.6-0)
    >>>> of amsmath commands in Rd files.  These have been supported since R 
    >>>> 4.2.2,
    >>>> but r-oldrel-macos-* (unlike r-oldrel-windows-*) continues to run R 
    >>>> 4.2.0.
    >>>> My expectation was that those machines would begin running R >= 4.2.2 
    >>>> well
    >>>> before the R 4.4.0 release, but apparently that was wrong.
    >>>> 
    >>>> I am hesitant to complicate our Rd files with conditions on R versions
    >>>> only to support PDF output for R < 4.2.2, but maybe we can consider it
    >>>> for the Matrix 1.6-2 release if it is really a barrier for others ...
    >>>> 
    >>>> Mikael
    >>>> 
    >>>> On 2023-10-31 3:33 pm, Simon Urbanek wrote:
    >>>>> Mikael,
    >>>>> current Matrix fails checks on R-oldrel so that's why only the last 
    >>>>> working version is installed:
    >>>>> https://cran.r-project.org/web/checks/check_results_Matrix.html
    >>>>> Cheers,
    >>>>> Simon
>>>>> On 1/11/2023, at 4:05 AM, Mikael Jagan <jaganmn2 using gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>>>> 
>>>>> I am guessing that they mean EdSurvey:
    >>>>>> 
>>>>>     https://cran.r-project.org/web/checks/check_results_EdSurvey.html
    >>>>>> 
>>>>> Probably Matrix 1.6-1.1 is not installed on r-oldrel-macos-arm64,
>>>>> even though it can be, because it was not released until R 4.3-z.
    >>>>>> 
>>>>> AFAIK, methods for 'qr' have not been touched since Matrix 1.6-0, and
>>>>> even those changes should have been backwards compatible, modulo 
>>>>> handling
>>>>> of dimnames (class sparseQR gained a Dimnames slot in 1.6-0).
    >>>>>> 
>>>>> So I don't see a clear reason for requiring 1.6-1.1.  Requiring 1.6-0
>>>>> might make sense, if somehow EdSurvey depends on how class sparseQR
>>>>> preserves dimnames.  But IIRC our rev. dep. checks at that time did 
>>>>> not
>>>>> reveal problems with EdSurvey.
    >>>>>> 
>>>>> Mikael
    >>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2023-10-31 7:00 am, r-package-devel-request using r-project.org wrote:
    >>>>>>> Paul,
    >>>>>>> can you give us a bit more detail? Which package, which build and 
    >>>>>>> where you got the errors? Older builds may not have the latest 
    >>>>>>> Matrix.
    >>>>>>> Cheers,
    >>>>>>> Simon
    >>>>>>>> On 31/10/2023, at 11:26 AM, Bailey, Paul via 
    >>>>>>>> R-package-devel<r-package-devel using r-project.org>  wrote:
    >>>>>>>> 
    >>>>>>>> Hi,
    >>>>>>>> 
    >>>>>>>> I'm the maintainer for a few packages, one of which is currently 
    >>>>>>>> failing CRAN checks on Mac OS because Matrix is not available in 
    >>>>>>>> my required version (the latest). I had to fix a few things due 
    >>>>>>>> to changes in the latest Matrix package because of how qr works 
    >>>>>>>> and I thought, given the apparent API change, I should then 
    >>>>>>>> require the latest version. My error is, "Package required and 
    >>>>>>>> available but unsuitable version: 'Matrix'"
    >>>>>>>> 
    >>>>>>>> When I look at the NEWS in Matrix there is no mention of Mac OS 
    >>>>>>>> issues, what the latest stable version of Matrix is, nor when a 
    >>>>>>>> fix is expected. What version do MacOS version test Matrix with 
    >>>>>>>> by default? Where is this documented? I assumes it always tested 
    >>>>>>>> with the latest version on CRAN, so I'm a bit surprised. Or will 
    >>>>>>>> this be resolved soon and I shouldn't bother CRAN maintainers 
    >>>>>>>> with a new version of my package?
    >>>>>>>> 
    >>>>>>>> Best,
    >>>>>>>> Paul
    >>>>>>>> 
    >>>>>>>>     [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
    >>>>>> 
    >>>> 
    >>> 
    >> 
    >> ______________________________________________
    >> R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
    >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel

    > ______________________________________________
    > R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
    > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel

More information about the R-package-devel mailing list