From pgilbert902 at gmail.com  Wed Apr  3 17:36:23 2013
From: pgilbert902 at gmail.com (Paul Gilbert)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:36:23 -0400
Subject: [Rd] R-package preparation --as-cran behaving unexpectedly
In-Reply-To: <515C4B4D.70708@gmail.com>
References: <515C119F.9040706@lumc.nl> <515C4B4D.70708@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <515C4C77.1080602@gmail.com>



On 13-04-03 11:31 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 03/04/2013 7:25 AM, Stefan Boehringer wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I am trying to submit an R-package to CRAN. In preparation I do run
>>
>> R_INSTALL_TAR=/bin/tar R CMD check --as-cran
>> parallelize.dynamic_0.9.tar.gz
>>
>> and the command finishes without warnings or errors. As a final output
>> I get
>>
>> NOTE: There was 1 note.
>> See
>> ?.../Rpackages/parallelize.dynamic/parallelize.dynamic.Rcheck/00check.log?
>>
>> for details.
>>
>> The file contains the standard output of the 'R CMD check ...' call
>> precisely. If I submit this very tarball to CRAN I get rejected with
>> warnings as reported from '--as-cran' checks there. In my case they are
>> valid warnings about assignments in .GlobalEnv which I can certainly
>> fix. However, my concern is about the discrepancy between the outputs of
>> 'R CMD check --as-cran' runs locally as compared to the run on the
>> CRAN-site.
>>
>> Any help is appreciated. I am running
>>
>>
>> R version 2.15.2 (2012-10-26) -- "Trick or Treat"
>> Platform: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (64-bit)
>
> Presumably CRAN is now running checks from 3.0.0 (which was released
> today, and has been available for testing for more than a month).  I
> wouldn't be surprised if those are different from the 2.15.2 tests.

Indeed, I think 2.15.3 tests running yesterday were slightly different 
from 2.15.2 tests.

Paul
>
> Duncan Murdoch
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel



[Rd] R-package preparation --as-cran behaving unexpectedly
Paul Gilbert