From h.wickham at gmail.com  Tue Nov 18 13:57:41 2008
From: h.wickham at gmail.com (hadley wickham)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:57:41 -0600
Subject: [Rd] checking for executable files ... WARNING
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0811180729210.4042@gannet.stats.ox.ac.uk>
References: <f8e6ff050811171724q44699b0djc3b79e50429aaf91@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.LFD.2.00.0811180729210.4042@gannet.stats.ox.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <f8e6ff050811180457t1dd5546dle8900616d7d37137@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Prof Brian Ripley
<ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, hadley wickham wrote:
>
>> In R 2.8. I get the following warning when checking my package:
>>
>> * checking for executable files ... WARNING
>> Found the following executable file(s):
>>  .git/objects/00/12947a4bb4379fb0c3bed740314a9f4ac72331
>>  .git/objects/00/21fac22a57a1567389ed34a9dc4f465c6cfd01
>>  .git/objects/00/29da5c289489fdb2249e19f4b165ff5b37b3e6
>>  .git/objects/00/36ad7f586eeac250e6609a1bf938e545101cb0
>> ... (for about 300 lines)
>>
>> I've tried putting .git in my .Rbuildignore, but this doesn't help the
>> problem.  Any ideas?
>
> Does 'R CMD build' a tarball and then 'R CMD check' not solve this?
> 'build' skips git files, and you only need to worry about executables in a
> tarball you ship.

Is this suggested best practice now?

Hadley

-- 
http://had.co.nz/



[Rd] checking for executable files ... WARNING
hadley wickham