Hello, Spencer. I am solely on Windows, so I am not familiar with the workflow you need, but I have found the following posts which discuss tlmgr in the context of a Github action. Perhaps they can provide you with insight: [1], [2].
Hope that helps! Avi [1] https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/551383/cant-run-tex-lives-tlmgr-in-a-github-action [2] https://github.com/xu-cheng/texlive-action On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 2:28 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 28/04/2022 10:17 a.m., Spencer Graves wrote: > > Hi, Duncan et al.: > > > > > > I passed Duncan's suggestions to Jim Ramsay, who implemented > > something -- not sure what -- and "fda_6.0.3.tar.gz has been built for > > Windows and will be published within 24 hours in the corresponding CRAN > > directory"! (Thanks, Duncan!) > > You're welcome. > > > My attempts to fix ".github/workflows/R-CMD-check.yaml" have so far > > been unsuccessful: > > > > > > https://github.com/JamesRamsay5/fda/commit/3dd1938d95055ed798a8b6caebcfe0eb8a03668b > > Line 50 in that update looks wrong. It might make sense to have "tlmgr > --version" just after line 53, indented like lines 54 and 55. > > Duncan Murdoch > > > > > For me currently, yaml = "yet another misunderstood language" ;-) > > And I've misplaced Yihui Xie's recommendations on how to ask for help. > > I remember he suggested submitting a question first to Stack Exchange or > > Stack Overflow or ..., but I can't find those recommendations, so I > > thought I'd here thank Avraham Adler <avraham.ad...@gmail.com> and > > everyone else who has considered replying to this question, hoping that > > someone can help me take the next step. > > > > > > Thanks again, > > Spencer Graves > > > > > > On 4/26/22 11:46 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > >> On 25/04/2022 8:24 p.m., Duncan Murdoch wrote: > >> ... > >>> > >>> \value{ > >>> These functions return either a standard \code{fRegress} fit > >>> object or > >>> or a model specification: > >>> \item{The \code{fRegress} fit object case:}{ > >>> > >>> > >>> Aha, in a \value{} section, bare \items are supposed to mark components > >>> of the value, so they are automatically code. I think the fix for this > >>> is to make it an explicit \describe list: > >>> > >>> \value{ > >>> These functions return either a standard \code{fRegress} fit > >>> object or > >>> or a model specification: > >>> \describe{ > >>> \item{The \code{fRegress} fit object case:}{ > >>> > >>> ... eventually ... > >>> > >>> } > >> > >> An even simpler fix: don't mark the section title as an \item, i.e. > >> write as > >> > >> \value{ > >> These functions return either a standard \code{fRegress} fit object or > >> or a model specification. > >> > >> The \code{fRegress} fit object case: > >> > >> > >> \item{field}{description .... } > >> > >> > >> Duncan Murdoch > > ______________________________________________ > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
