From ggrothendieck at myway.com  Sat Nov 20 04:47:50 2004
From: ggrothendieck at myway.com (Gabor Grothendieck)
Date: Sat Nov 20 04:48:04 2004
Subject: [Rd] Building Packages on Windows using .Rbuildignore (PR#7379)
References: <20041119212202.83F221043D@slim.kubism.ku.dk>
	<loom.20041120T012822-611@post.gmane.org>
	<dpctp0ll0129kt8fpj62ev0ciir0ch4m5m@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <loom.20041120T043535-913@post.gmane.org>

Duncan Murdoch <murdoch <at> stats.uwo.ca> writes:

> 
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 00:39:17 +0000 (UTC), Gabor Grothendieck
> <ggrothendieck <at> myway.com> wrote:
> 
> >: Even with this change, Rcmd check is still going to install the files
> >: it's supposed to ignore, because it uses Rcmd INSTALL, and there's no
> >: .Rbuildignore support there.
> >: 
> >
> >If the behaviour is suddenly changed then this is going to cause work
> >for people whose scripts depend on the current behavior. 
> 
> Yes, that's normal.   If you work around a bug and the bug gets fixed,
> then you will need to change your code.  That's why the NEWS file
> reports bug fixes and other changes.
> 
> > In order to
> >minimize disruption I would ask that such change only be made at the
> >same time that a flag for turning on and off .Rbuildignore processing
> >is implemented on build, check, install and build --binary.  
> 
> There's a simple workaround to turn .Rbuildignore processing off: just
> rename the file.  Adding a switch is *not* a prerequisite for the
> other changes.
> 
> >Even
> >with such a flag it may require revision to scripts but at least
> >any change with the flag will be minimal.  Even better, it may
> >mean some scripts can be eliminated.
> 
> There are 3 changes that I would contemplate:
> 
> 1.  Fix the bug that means "R CMD check" looks in the wrong place for
> .Rbuildignore.
> 
> 2.  Make "R CMD build --binary" consistent with "R CMD build" in its
> handling of .Rbuildignore.
> 
> 3.  Make "R CMD install" and "R CMD check" consistent with "R CMD
> build" in their handling of .Rbuildignore.
> 
> Number 1 should definitely be fixed in the patches to 2.0.1.  I have a
> feeling that both 2 and 3 should be done (and 2 would be an automatic
> consequence of 3 unless we took action to stop it), but I'd put them
> in 2.1.0, not 2.0.x.
> 
> Martin and you have also suggested 
> 
> 4.  Add another flag to Rcmd build (and install and check?), to turn
> .Rbuildignore processing on and off, for increased flexiblity or for
> backward compatiblity.
> 
> My own feeling is that this doesn't increase flexibility enough, and
> I'd like a better solution, but we've got lots of time before 2.1.0 is
> released to discuss this.

I did not know it was a bug and even you did not realize it until you
looked at the code.

I do have one suggestion that might be trivial for you yet be beneficial
for everyone else, as an interim step, until a better solution comes about.

After fixing the scripts, could you leave the old scripts in bin 
with new names, e.g. oldbuild, oldcheck, etc. so that one can issue
the command:

   R CMD oldbuild ...

and get the old behavior.  That provides a simple way to get either
behavior while waiting for the ultimate solution and does not interfere
with the new scripts in any way.


[Rd] Building Packages on Windows using .Rbuildignore (PR#7379)
Gabor Grothendieck