Skip to content

R CMD check in R-3.0.0 gives warnings

4 messages · Berend Hasselman, Dirk Eddelbuettel, Duncan Murdoch

#
I am running R CMD check on my package nleqslv with R-3.0.0 beta (2013-03-33 r62364) on Mac OS X 10.6.8

In contrast with R-2.15.3 R CMD check now issues a note for 

- Mercurial version control files .hgignore, .hgtags and directory .hg. These are however included in .hidden_file_exclusions.
- typical Mac Finder files .DS_Store

All of these are ignored when executing R CMD check --as-cran.

I can't remove the .hg* files and directories. I could remove the .DS_Store files to avoid the note.

The note is harmless but annoying and strikes me as slightly overzealous.

Berend
#
On 22 March 2013 at 21:03, Berend Hasselman wrote:
| I am running R CMD check on my package nleqslv with R-3.0.0 beta (2013-03-33 r62364) on Mac OS X 10.6.8
| 
| In contrast with R-2.15.3 R CMD check now issues a note for 
| 
| - Mercurial version control files .hgignore, .hgtags and directory .hg. These are however included in .hidden_file_exclusions.
| - typical Mac Finder files .DS_Store
| 
| All of these are ignored when executing R CMD check --as-cran.
| 
| I can't remove the .hg* files and directories. I could remove the .DS_Store files to avoid the note.

A few years ago the "Right Way To Do Things" changed.  You are really
supposed to do 'R CMD check' off the tar.gz, and you *do* have a toggle to
exclude what goes into the tar.gz:   .Rbuildignore

| The note is harmless but annoying and strikes me as slightly overzealous.

So are are many other warnings. 

But in the long run I am happy they are there so that eg my system does not
get polluted with your .hg and .DS_Store files which are of zero use to me.

Warnings are your friends. Be nice to them.

Dirk
#
On 22-03-2013, at 21:26, Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org> wrote:

            
which I have. And making a .tar.gz will ignore the version control files. So why not ignore them when doing a check on a (allowed) package directory?
#
On 13-03-22 4:40 PM, Berend Hasselman wrote:
Because that makes the code messier.  A directory is treated as if it 
was just extracted from the tarball.  If the code had to distinguish two 
different ways of getting to that state it would be harder to maintain.

Duncan Murdoch