[R-pkg-devel] NOTE about lack of prebuilt manual

[Michael Dewey]

Thank you to, in alphabetical order of given names, Iris, Ivan, Uwe and 
Wolfgang for your responses. I implemented Iris' suggestion and have 
successfully uploaded one of the packages to CRAN.

Michael

On 09/07/2024 10:06, Ivan Krylov wrote:
> В Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:54:22 +0000
> "Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (NP)"
> <wolfgang.viechtbauer using maastrichtuniversity.nl> пишет:
> 
>> This appears to be related to this change
>> (https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-devel/NEWS.html):
>>
>> - tools::checkRd() (used by R CMD check) detects more problems with
>> ⁠\Sexpr⁠-based dynamic content, including bad nesting of ⁠\Sexpr⁠s
>> and invalid arguments.
> 
> The exact change was:
> 
> r85348 | hornik | 2023-10-18 08:13:46 +0000 (Wed, 18 Oct 2023) | 1 line
> Build PDF refman only when explicitly asked for.
> 
> --- src/library/tools/R/build.R (revision 85347)
> +++ src/library/tools/R/build.R (revision 85348)
> @@ -633,7 +633,7 @@
>           }
> 
>          needRefman <- manual &&
> -            parse_description_field(desc, "BuildManual", TRUE) &&
> +            parse_description_field(desc, "BuildManual", FALSE) &&
>               any(btinfo[, "later"])
>          if (needRefman) {
>              messageLog(Log, "building the PDF package manual")
> 
> So now R CMD build only builds the manual when both BuildManual is set
> to yes _and_ there are \Sexpr{}s with [stage=install or render].
> (Previously BuildManual: yes was assumed by default.)
> 
> Was the motivation for this change to make R CMD build faster for
> everyone, with the expectation that the relatively rare package
> maintainers with non-[stage=build] \Sexpr{}s will set BuildManual: yes
> to adapt?
> 

-- 
Michael