-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
What is the recommended way to run R CMD check with these containers? #11
Comments
Hi @nsheff , I'll try to get a size comparison with a But as for right now,
|
Hi @nturaga -- any updates on this? do you think it would make sense for Bioconductor to maintain exactly this docker image as you suggest? Because otherwise I think several of us are basically doing exactly this independently... |
I think Vince has funding specifically to fully containerize the official build system, and to make it straightforward for anyone to test packages on the same container. Not sure of the status, but I fully agree on the value of having a shared build environment. I suspect in the meantime several of us have added the above code independently (e.g. https://github.com/waldronlab/bioconductor), which approximates the Linux build system adequately for most (but not 100% of) packages. I guess there's a fair ways to go to a 3-platform containerized build system for all Bioconductor packages, but that may be letting the perfect be the enemy of the good in the meanwhile. |
One problem with the above approach is that for every R version, you have to have a duplicated installation of all the latex stuff, which is quite large. It would be more efficient to base the bioconductor containers on a base image that included latex, so that those layers would only have to be stored once, and multiple versions of R could live on top of that (since R is changing more rapidly than the latex stuff. Furthermore, the base latex image could probably be a useful standalone latex image. bigger picture -- maybe eventually the PDF building stuff should be removed from R CMD check entirely. In my experience most things are moving toward HTML outputs anyway so maybe latex shouldn't be required for the default R CMD check. Unfortunately, the |
Do you have any expertise in docker-compose or sharing volumes? https://github.com/nturaga/bioconductor-latex The idea here is TinyTex is installed on a docker image. We share the This solution will prevent the duplication issue, which you mention above. But I'm not able to get this solution to work as I wanted, and I was hoping to open up a discussion to get it to work. Right now, the problem with what I shared on that GitHub repo is the files in the |
Adding @LiNk-NY to the thread as he did some work on this too. |
I'm using the container
bioconductor/bioconductor_docker:RELEASE_3_10
.When I try to run an
R CMD check
using this container, I get:I presume this is because this container doesn't contain all the required latex stuff for building PDF manuals. That's probably by design since the latex dependencies are huge -- but in this case, what is the recommended way to do
R CMD check
?Further, running a
BiocCheck
in the container also fails sinceBiocCheck
hasn't been included.What is the recommended way to use the containers for package building/checking? Do you think it makes sense to maintain some kind of a 'building' image that includes these prerequisites?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: