R chek of package VR is broken (PR#1683)

[Kurt Hornik]

>>>>> ripley  writes:

> On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 10:00:11PM +0200, ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk wrote:
>> > and the under-qualified pilot applied it to a *binary* installed package,
>> > despite the emphasized warning.
>> 
>> I wonder if "R CMD check ... " could abort with an error message if it is
>> applied to a binary package?

> I am not sure how simple that is.  It used to be hard to tell source
> and binary packages apart.  What we can do is to test for Built: in
> the DESCRIPTION file, which will cope with people who have built the
> package recently.

This was introduced in 1.4 I think (?) so it seems we can change the
heuristics now to rely on the correspondence Built: <-> binary.  I will
soon (once I have time again) change INSTALL accordingly.

> The trouble with idiot-proofing is anticipating the idiot: as far as I
> am aware this is a first.

> In all other cases I tried the INSTALL part of R CMD check failed.

We need better integration of INSTALL into check anyway.  But we can
have more idiot-proofing in check as well.  Something in the works is a
reorganization of INSTALL/check/build with something else needed for
creating front-matter stuff, and we also need to rethink the logic of
check (e.g., verify correctness of meta-information prior to trying to
install).

-k
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
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
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._