[R-SIG-Mac] [Rd] My first package

[Federico Calboli]

On 20 Jan 2014, at 15:15, Gábor Csárdi <csardi.gabor at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Federico Calboli <f.calboli at imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
> [...]
> I do that *with the current release of R* and I never had an issue whatsoever.  Incidentally the words 'This should be done with the current version of R-devel (or if that is not possible, current R-patched or the current release of R' translate in plainspeak 'run R CMD check --as-cran with whatever version of R provided it's not outdated'.
> 
> That's an interesting "translation".

That's as interesting as the English language makes it -- please note of the expression 'should' as opposed to 'must', and the list of three options of R versions.

> Are you a CRAN maintainer?

I maintain two packages on CRAN, if that's what you're asking.

> 
> I guess you were just lucky so far. Most packages are small and not affected by changes between R-release and R-devel. But some of them are. 
> 
> Also, R-devel typically has more rigorous package checks than R-release.

Does it?  

> My package was delayed several times because it did not pass checks in R-devel (it did in R-release). I guess this happened to other packages as well, hence the sentence above was included in the policies.

I presume that the issue is this: some packages are written solely in R, hence, unless one uses a particular and outdated syntax, there are no differences between R-devel and and R-current, whereas packages that call C/C++/Fortran code are subject to the vagaries of compilers and operating systems, and using R-devel should help future proofing the package, while maintaing compatibility with R-current.

BW

F


> 
> Gabor

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 881 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-mac/attachments/20140120/f4dc83f6/attachment.bin>