Thank you. Makes sense. It is *very* helpful to have R CMD check provide
that.
Cathy Lee Gierke
*“Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot
drive out hate: only love can do that.” *
*“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”*
*“Nothing
> Dirk Eddelbuettel
> on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:50:19 -0600 writes:
> On 30 January 2017 at 09:58, Kevin Ushey wrote:
> | The correct thing to do is indeed import any functions from any R
packages
> | you use, base or otherwise. The simplest fix, if you don't want to
> |
On 30 January 2017 at 09:58, Kevin Ushey wrote:
| The correct thing to do is indeed import any functions from any R packages
| you use, base or otherwise. The simplest fix, if you don't want to
| selectively import such a large range of functions, is to simply add e.g.
|
| import(utils)
|
Thank you. That will be why I didn't see them previously. Helps my sanity ;-)
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 8:58 PM, Kevin Ushey wrote:
>
> Most importantly, this _is_ a recent-ish change in R CMD check. Previously, R
> CMD check did not warn about missing imports from 'base' R pac
On 30/01/2017 12:04 PM, Cathy Lee Gierke wrote:
That is the obvious solution, but it doesn't seem correct: I have pdf
included in the description, and namespace files, yet it is being called
out. Additionally, aren't most of these pkgs in the packages included by
default?
And up until yesterda
Most importantly, this _is_ a recent-ish change in R CMD check. Previously,
R CMD check did not warn about missing imports from 'base' R packages (that
is, R packages distributed with R, having priority 'base'); now it
correctly does. While packages with priority 'base' are loaded by default
in mos
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Cathy Lee Gierke wrote:
> That is the obvious solution, but it doesn't seem correct: I have pdf
> included in the description, and namespace files, yet it is being called
> out. Additionally, aren't most of these pkgs in the packages included by
> default?
>
N
See the link in my email below. It says:
"Packages implicitly import the base namespace. Variables exported from
other packages with namespaces need to be imported explicitly using the
directives import and importFrom."
Regards,
Brian
On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 11:04 -0600, Cathy Lee Gierke wrote:
>
That is the obvious solution, but it doesn't seem correct: I have pdf
included in the description, and namespace files, yet it is being called
out. Additionally, aren't most of these pkgs in the packages included by
default?
And up until yesterday, I didn't have any of these problems. I've been
The error you reference below is pretty clear, I think.
You need to add imports for all the functions you're using from other
packages.
See: https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.html#Speci
fying-imports-and-exports
Regards,
Brian
On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 10:39 -0600, Cathy Lee G
On 30 January 2017 at 10:39, Cathy Lee Gierke wrote:
| Everything was fine, a few minor warnings...now this. Description and
| namespace are proper. These pkgs should all be part of the R base, aren't
| they? Anyone know why I should get these errors? Thanks!
Just read what it says and do that
Yes, that seemed to get rid of the NOTEbut it doesn't seem to make much
difference other than that. i.e., it seems to process the same using
CATkit vs CATkit_2.06.tar.gz!
Here is the main error that I am getting. I just upgraded to the latest R
version, fyi.
Everything was fine, a few minor
On 29.06.2015 19:19, Zhian Kamvar wrote:
Does this also mean that we now need to include these packages (stats,
graphics, etc) in the Imports field of the DESCRIPTION?
Yes. And by proper import directives in the NAMESPACE file, ideally you
should be selectively importing via importFrom() di
Most of this has been answered by others already. Note that package base
itself is always imported into the Namespace but names from the other
packages are not and really need to be if actually used.
Best,
Uwe Ligges
On 29.06.2015 19:09, Kevin Ushey wrote:
Hi Uwe,
It seems like this is quite
On 29 June 2015 at 10:23, Neal Fultz wrote:
| There's https://twitter.com/cranpolicywatch
|
| I wouldn't mind if that got forwarded to r-package-devel, as I'm not on
| twitter myself.
CRAN Policy Watch is a simple-ish cronjob and you can also 'watch' (or
subscribe to) the underlying GitHub repo
> and available as an RSS feed. (If you prefer Twitter, feel free to
> mirror the RSS feed there, if that's possible. I don't use Twitter, so
> I won't do it.) It seems to have become known here essentially
> immediately, so I'm not sure how an announcement would help.
>
> For the reasoning: th
Dan,
I find it useful to reference external functions as package::function()
throughout all of our R code. This eliminates the need to import namespaces
although you still need to to specify the package in the DESCRIPTION file
"Imports:" section.
Best,
Jon
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Uwe L
On 29/06/2015 7:09 PM, Kevin Ushey wrote:
> Hi Uwe,
>
> It seems like this is quite a major change; I imagine it will affect many
> packages (since lots of packages implicitly assume other 'base' packages,
> like 'utils', will always be available in an R session). IIUC, in the
> latest versions of
Does this also mean that we now need to include these packages (stats,
graphics, etc) in the Imports field of the DESCRIPTION?
Thanks,
Zhian
> On Jun 29, 2015, at 10:09 , Kevin Ushey wrote:
>
> Hi Uwe,
>
> It seems like this is quite a major change; I imagine it will affect many
> packages (si
There's https://twitter.com/cranpolicywatch
I wouldn't mind if that got forwarded to r-package-devel, as I'm not on
twitter myself.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Kevin Ushey wrote:
> Hi Uwe,
>
> It seems like this is quite a major change; I imagine it will affect many
> packages (since lo
Hi Uwe,
It seems like this is quite a major change; I imagine it will affect many
packages (since lots of packages implicitly assume other 'base' packages,
like 'utils', will always be available in an R session). IIUC, in the
latest versions of R-devel, only the 'base' package can be assumed
avail
On 29.06.2015 11:10, Daniel Lüdecke wrote:
Hello,
I'm doing my package check for CRAN, in order to see whether submitting the
package-update passes all checks.
I'm doing the tests under Windows 7, using R-Version "R Under development
(unstable) (2015-06-28 r68602)".
Now I got a quite long lis
Hello,
I'm doing my package check for CRAN, in order to see whether submitting the
package-update passes all checks.
I'm doing the tests under Windows 7, using R-Version "R Under development
(unstable) (2015-06-28 r68602)".
Now I got a quite long list of NOTEs, which are probably no problem,
howe
23 matches
Mail list logo
