Release valr 0.6.4
jayhesselberth opened this issue · 9 comments
Prepare for release:
- Check current CRAN check results
- Polish NEWS
-
devtools::build_readme()
-
urlchecker::url_check()
-
devtools::check(remote = TRUE, manual = TRUE)
-
devtools::check_win_devel()
-
rhub::check_for_cran()
-
rhub::check(platform = 'ubuntu-rchk')
-
rhub::check_with_sanitizers()
-
revdepcheck::revdep_check(num_workers = 4)
- Update
cran-comments.md
Submit to CRAN:
-
usethis::use_version('patch')
-
devtools::submit_cran()
- Approve email
Wait for CRAN...
- Accepted 🎉
-
usethis::use_github_release()
-
usethis::use_dev_version()
@kriemo you'll need to complete the rest of these now that you're maintainer (the e-mails will go to you). LMK if you have any issues.
BTW, my experience is that rhub is pretty flaky. Getting the sanitizers to run is important, but I sometimes give up on the others.
Great, thanks. As far as I can tell there are no issues to fix. There is an error from not installing rtracklayer
on windows R-devel, Notes about package sizes and the maintainer change, false positive Rchk errors, and a false positive error from not connecting to an ensembl website. The rhub::check_with_sanitizers()
passes. We also have 1 bioc revdep now RLSeq
which passes builds.
rhub::check_for_cran()
:
-
windows: R-devel
Error
:
due tortracklayer
not being available for install (https://builder.r-hub.io/status/valr_0.6.3.9000.tar.gz-6d45d581a9e4453683731b6da6e3d6d9 ) -
Debian Linux, R-devel, GCC ASAN/UBSAN
OK
(https://builder.r-hub.io/status/valr_0.6.3.9000.tar.gz-280d009baf094914852fed24d6201c73) -
Ubuntu Linux 20.04.1 LTS, R-release, GCC
NOTES
(https://builder.r-hub.io/status/valr_0.6.3.9000.tar.gz-bdb0207620ed4d41b688cb893d61034c)
NOTES:
* checking CRAN incoming feasibility ... NOTE
Maintainer: ‘Kent Riemondy <kent.riemondy@cuanschutz.edu>’
Version contains large components (0.6.3.9000)
New maintainer:
Kent Riemondy <kent.riemondy@cuanschutz.edu>
Old maintainer(s):
Jay Hesselberth <jay.hesselberth@gmail.com>
Found the following (possibly) invalid URLs:
URL: https://www.ensembl.org/info/data/mysql.html
From: man/db.Rd
Status: Error
Message: libcurl error code 60:
SSL certificate problem: unable to get local issuer certificate
(Status without verification: OK)
* checking installed package size ... NOTE
installed size is 19.8Mb
sub-directories of 1Mb or more:
libs 18.7Mb
- Fedora Linux, R-devel, clang, gfortran
NOTES
(https://builder.r-hub.io/status/valr_0.6.3.9000.tar.gz-69f86681f47243f99d5101160518e530)
* checking CRAN incoming feasibility ... NOTE
Maintainer: ‘Kent Riemondy <kent.riemondy@cuanschutz.edu>’
Version contains large components (0.6.3.9000)
New maintainer:
Kent Riemondy <kent.riemondy@cuanschutz.edu>
Old maintainer(s):
Jay Hesselberth <jay.hesselberth@gmail.com>
Found the following (possibly) invalid URLs:
URL: https://www.ensembl.org/info/data/mysql.html
From: man/db.Rd
Status: Error
Message: libcurl error code 60:
SSL certificate problem: unable to get local issuer certificate
(Status without verification: OK)
* checking installed package size ... NOTE
installed size is 9.5Mb
sub-directories of 1Mb or more:
libs 8.4Mb
rhub::check(platform = 'ubuntu-rchk')
:
- Ubuntu Linux 20.04.1 LTS, R-devel with rchk,
ERROR
, shows typical false positives that are ignored by rchk on CRAN.
(https://builder.r-hub.io/status/valr_0.6.3.9000.tar.gz-bc35a29700a54591a09aaf9ed51a52cd)
rhub::check_with_sanitizers()
:
- Debian Linux, R-devel, GCC ASAN/UBSAN
OK
(https://builder.r-hub.io/status/valr_0.6.3.9000.tar.gz-5cc10a3c4bc84bb9acb8c795e5e07517)
revdepcheck::revdep_check(num_workers = 4)
:
We checked 1 reverse dependencies (0 from CRAN + 1 from Bioconductor (`RLSeq`)), comparing R CMD check results across CRAN and dev versions of this package.
* We saw 0 new problems
* We failed to check 0 packages
Did devtools::check_win_devel()
pass cleanly?
yes, with a NOTE about the maintainer change and the large size due to Rcpp:
Got. I updated cran-comments.md
so you should be good to proceed.
Don't worry about the commit I accidentally made to the master branch. You should be good to proceed.
k, thanks. I fixed noticed and fixed some spelling errors in the docs, but I would guess that I should still be good to proceed? or should I rerun the checks?
If you update docs, make sure you re-run devtools::document()
and the local R CMD CHECK. No need to redo everything.