Message-ID: <96a6b850-4a09-4fa5-af8d-1b4c51fd0f99@statistik.tu-dortmund.de>
Date: 2024-12-10T14:42:48Z
From: Uwe Ligges
Subject: [R-pkg-devel] Query about broken reverse dependencies that already are broken
In-Reply-To: <93067192-36f0-4b9a-8365-0b08a48bb523@gmail.com>
On 10.12.2024 15:02, J C Nash wrote:
> This is a question about how things are done rather than a request for a
> fix.
>
> Yesterday I re-submitted my optimx package with some small but important
> fixes
> (e.g., one place where one solver would miss catching function
> evaluation limits).
> I'd done a revdepcheck that came up with "Wow, no problems", but in fact
> one of
> the revdeps had a test failure which was already flagged in its checks
> list on
> CRAN. A package test example had a singularity on some systems. This can
> happen with
> nonlinear function minimization due to very small changes in arithmetic and
> approximations of different systems. Putting in checks and "graceful
> failure"
> for such conditions is the ideal for optimization solvers, but it isn't
> easy.
> Some of the changes in the optimx update submitted are of this flavour.
>
> When the submission checks came back this morning there was a
> "Changes to worse in reverse depends:", even though there really is no
> change.
> However, I then got a msg "Thanks, on its way to CRAN."
Indeed, as I have seen the packages with "changes to worse" had similar
issues on another platform even before your change, I had let yours pass.
Best,
Uwe Ligges
>
> Am I correct in assuming a manual review passed the package (which
> hopefully I
> did get fully compliant)? Or will I get an eventual "please fix" for
> something
> clearly outside my scope of action?
>
> As indicated, at the moment this isn't a request for help, though that
> may come
> later.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John Nash
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-package-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel