From h.wickham at gmail.com  Fri Jan 18 15:52:46 2013
From: h.wickham at gmail.com (Hadley Wickham)
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 08:52:46 -0600
Subject: [Rd] Trouble building package using R in development
In-Reply-To: <1358370376.4687.48.camel@chrysothemis.geog.ucl.ac.uk>
References: <1358348706.4687.25.camel@chrysothemis.geog.ucl.ac.uk>
	<1358349920.4687.34.camel@chrysothemis.geog.ucl.ac.uk>
	<CAFDcVCQmyZYLpT=vkFaT5feJSS4VcSBKR+VoNAtosVKXBhzU_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABdHhvH8rMf+7_1vSXErW142vR=xctwXw6YyO6m0QyADxt-=nQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1358370376.4687.48.camel@chrysothemis.geog.ucl.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <CABdHhvGbYp+=ayDrTmncbSiu3W09a+mNrKcmvBvS3iP36SZdLg@mail.gmail.com>

> To what end is the --vanilla here? Writing R Extensions says that R CMD
> check (and R CMD build) are invoked via R --vanilla so that would seem
> redundant, although my experience from several hours working this
> through today suggests there is a difference between R --vanilla CMD
> check and R CMD check.

Maybe that's new? We've certainly had problems with R CMD reading user
startup files, which is why we starting using --vanilla.

Hadley

-- 
Chief Scientist, RStudio
http://had.co.nz/



[Rd] Trouble building package using R in development
Hadley Wickham