Building packages on Windows fails
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Peter Kleiweg wrote:
Prof Brian Ripley schreef op de 7e dag van de wijnmaand van het jaar 2005:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Peter Kleiweg wrote:
Duncan Murdoch schreef op de 6e dag van de wijnmaand van het jaar 2005:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Peter Kleiweg wrote:
What has changed in R for Windows from version 1.7.1 to 2.2.0 that won't allow me to build binary packages?
Many things have changed; I don't know which is causing the failure you see. One change is that instructions are now collected in the Installation and Administration manual. Try following the setup instructions there and see if it still fails.
I can't find anything on building packages for Windows in that manual.
Your problems was installing, so the section on `Installing Packages' should help you.
Installing worked fine. Building a binary distribution (with compiled help files) is what didn't work. This worked fine: Rcmd build iL04 But that just gave a gzip'ed tarfile, not a zip-file, and without the compiled helpfiles. This didn't work: Rcmd build --force --binary iL04
I did find a solution to the problem. On a Linux install, each package has a file CONTENTS. These are missing from the Windows install. I copied those files from my Linux install to my Windows install, and then I could build my own package. So I guess, these CONTENTS files should be included in the Windows install.
And indeed they are, as the presence of 500+ packages on CRAN for Windows will show you.
Well, I just ran the install program for Windows, with compiled html help, but without the ordinary html help files. In that case, no CONTENTS files get installed.
Ah, that's the clue. People normally build complete binary distributions: let's see if we can track that down.
The recommended way to build a binary package on Windows is R CMD INSTALL --build
Yes, that works. Even without the CONTENTS files. And this is recommended in the manual "Creating R packages", another manual than Duncan Murdoch was referring to. I was using a method that was recommended in earlier versions. Perhaps that method should just be disabled, with a message about the current method, instead of having it fail for obscure reasons.
It is not quite the same thing. I have been in favour of removing it, but others have differed in their opinions.
Brian D. Ripley, ripley at 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 272866 (PA) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595