>>>>> Simon Urbanek writes: Re part II (CRAN packages which have NeedsCompilation: yes but don't really need it): I of course have code for this, last touched in 2016. Running the code (which currently only looks at having a 'src' subdir, based on one possible interpreation of
it is normally set by ‘R CMD build’ or the repository assuming compilation is required if and only if the package has a ‘src’ directory. in WRE) finds the same packages as on Jeroen's list (minus bcgam and NetFACS which got archived recently). One could integrate a variant of the code into R CMD check if we think there is a "real need" (which I admit I have not seen thus far or else I would have added check code). For now I'll try the effect of writing to the maintainers of the 124 current CRAN packages which have NeedsCompilation: yes but no 'src' and asking them to fix "as necessary", without setting a formal deadline. Best -k > Jeroen, > thanks for raising the issues. Comments inline. >> On May 15, 2025, at 1:47 AM, Jeroen Ooms <jeroeno...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> R-universe builds and checks all CRAN packages on arm64 on Mac, Linux >> and soon Windows. It is important that we can identify from a binary >> package for which architecture it was built. R inserts this >> information into the second part of the "Built:" field in the >> DESCRIPTION. For example, packages with compiled code contain: >> >> Built: R 4.5.0; aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu; 2025-05-05 14:06:56 UTC; unix >> >> And packages without compiled code contain: >> >> Built: R 4.5.0; ; 2025-05-08 06:46:33 UTC; unix >> >> However this is not working for packages that compile something, but >> do not have a 'src' dir. > Can you give an example, please? I wonder if there is a real use-case or just > bad package design. I wouldn't think that should happen as configure is > supposed to only guide the compilation in src - if there is no src no > binaries are expected as the package did not provide any native sources hence > there should be no binary content. This looks like something that could be > added to R CMD check? >> I think these packages are supposed to manually set "NeedsCompilation: yes" >> in their DESCRIPTION file. Two suggestions: >> >> 1. Currently R only records the platform in the mentioned "Built" if >> the source package contains a 'src' dir. Could this be improved such >> that it also does so for these packages with "NeedsCompilation: yes"? >> Here is a two line patch: >> https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/199/files >> >> 2. There are a handful of CRAN packages that have "NeedsCompilation: >> yes" but they neither have a 'src' dir nor a 'configure' script. Afaik >> this is a contradiction, as there is no place any compilation can be >> invoked without either of these files present? I think in most these >> cases "NeedsCompilation: yes" is a leftover from older versions. If >> so, would it be possible for CMD check to warn against redundant >> NeedsCompilation:yes? Here is a script to list packages that currently >> use this: https://gist.github.com/jeroen/e8b225e9b1004a16ef90f50700352aa5 >> > I think both cases look like candidates to R CMD check, so, yes, agreed. > Without valid use-cases I'm not convinced yet that an override is a good idea > since it may get out of sync just as you noted, but I may be just missing a > valid use-case. That said, if the override is paired with the check, i.e., if > both your proposals are implemented (and a warning if configure generates > binaries without declaring them) that would cover all the bases. > Cheers, > Simon > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
