Release haven 2.5.2 about haven

[hadley]

Resubmitted 😄

[hadley]

And now on CRAN 🥳

[gorcha]

Hey @hadley, thinking this might need to be a minor (2.6.0) release instead of patch (2.5.2) because of the write_sas() soft deprecation - what do you think?

[hadley]

I think a patch is probably fine, since write_sas() never really worked well. This is more of an acknowledgement that we don't think we can do anything about it.

[gorcha]

Hey @hadley, just waiting for rhub to finish checking - could you please run the revdepcheck?

[hadley]

Started!

[gorcha]

Thanks @hadley! The rhub checks took forever to run but they're done now - some of the checks have errored but it seems to be due to failures in dependency builds and not haven itself.

On the CRAN check results page r-oldrel-windows-ix86+x86_64 is erroring at the moment with a cryptic install log '' does not exist message. The install log on the CRAN checks page looks fine, and I've tried building on win-builder with oldrel without issue, so not sure if we should be concerned about this?

[gorcha]

P.S. I've updated your email address to the new posit one in DESCRIPTION, shall add a note to cran-comments.md

[hadley]

@gorcha I think you can ignore the r-oldrel-windows-ix86+x86_64 problem and no need to add a note for my email address because CRAN seems to handle it automatically now.

[hadley]

Just checked the revdeps in. No obvious problems!

[gorcha]

OK great! In that case good to submit 🙂

[hadley]

@gorcha https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/haven_2.5.2_20230227_145948/Debian/00check.log 😞

[gorcha]

@hadley Annoying! It looked like including void in the declarations in the header files had fixed it but evidently not. I'm surprised this didn't show up on any of the test platforms, since we had both gcc and clang covered!

I've added void to the appropriate function declarations so should be good to resubmit. Shall follow up upstream and see if we can get the change made to ReadStat.

[hadley]

Gah, one last thing:

* checking C++ specification ... NOTE
  Specified C++11: please drop specification unless essential

I think it's ok to just delete this from the DESCRIPTION?

[gorcha]

Always one last thing!

Yep that should do it, I've seen some mention of this coming from Makevars but the DESCRIPTION seems to be the only place we mention it. Have updated, hopefully that's it!

[hadley]

Hopefully third time's the charm 😄