From ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk  Tue Jun 18 07:51:06 2002
From: ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk (ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 07:51:06 +0100 (BST)
Subject: R chek of package VR is broken (PR#1683)
In-Reply-To: <20020618020050.GA20949@sonny.eddelbuettel.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.31.0206180742560.12426-100000@gannet.stats>

On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 10:00:11PM +0200, ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk wrote:
> > and the under-qualified pilot applied it to a *binary* installed package,
> > despite the emphasized warning.
>
> I wonder if "R CMD check ... " could abort with an error message if it is
> applied to a binary package?

I am not sure how simple that is.  It used to be hard to tell source and
binary packages apart.  What we can do is to test for Built: in the
DESCRIPTION file, which will cope with people who have built the package
recently.

The trouble with idiot-proofing is anticipating the idiot: as far as I am
aware this is a first.

In all other cases I tried the INSTALL part of R CMD check failed.

-- 
Brian D. Ripley,                  ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk
Professor of Applied Statistics,  http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford,             Tel:  +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road,                     +44 1865 272860 (secr)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK                Fax:  +44 1865 272595

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


R chek of package VR is broken (PR#1683)
ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk