Skip to content

make check (PR#165)

3 messages · Martyn Plummer, Robert Gentleman, Peter Dalgaard

Original
Martyn Plummer
# 
This message is in MIME format
--_=XFMail.1.3.p0.Linux:990413120342:8241=_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

R 0.64.0 on RedHat Linux 5.1

I decided to add a "make check" command in the R RPM spec file
to ensure that R works properly before packaging it up.  I
found (by sabotaging one of the *.Rout.save files) that errors
found by "make check" are ignored and do not cause make to exit
abnormally. This means that there is no way for rpm to know that
the checks have failed, and the RPM package gets built anyway.

I changed this by removing the "-" flag in test-All, as in the
attached patch. I'm sure there was a reason the flag was there,
but it is a problem for me, so I'm submitting this as a bug
report.

Martyn


--_=XFMail.1.3.p0.Linux:990413120342:8241=_
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="R-makecheck.patch"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: R-makecheck.patch
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=us-ascii; name=R-makecheck.patch; SizeOnDisk=306

# Remove "ignore" flag from test-All so that
# build will fail if "make check" fails.
#
--- Makefile.in	Wed Jan  6 16:37:37 1999
+++ Makefile.in.patched	Tue Apr 13 11:00:42 1999
@@ -151,4 +151,4 @@
 
 check test:: test-All
 test-All test-Examples::
-	-@(cd tests && $(MAKE) $@)
+	@(cd tests && $(MAKE) $@)

--_=XFMail.1.3.p0.Linux:990413120342:8241=_--
End of MIME message

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
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
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
2 days later
Robert Gentleman
# 
I've just committed a fix for debugging functions that do not have
{'s around the body (funs with one line basically). Let me know if you
have problems. 

(all my stuff is going in 0.65 and I'll try to migrate it over once
I think it's ok)


-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
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
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
Peter Dalgaard
# 
Robert Gentleman <rgentlem@hsph.harvard.edu> writes:
One thing:

example(esoph)

is bailing out in a glm() call, and of course make check does too.