Joris Meys <jorismeys <at> gmail.com> writes: > > I agree completely with Uwe on this one. Yet, the idea of Rainer is > useful if you replace "remove the package" by "orphan the package". > Some sort of automated orphanization. The package remains available > that way if I understood it right, and can more easily be adopted by > another developer that feels responsible. It might also make the > manual cleanup (i.e. detecting poorly maintained packages without a > responsive developer) a bit easier. After all, clicking a link once > every so often to indicate you're still following the package isn't > too much work for a package developer, and it could help the CRAN > maintainers. Or am I completely off here? >
Just a tiny update: Thanks to the great new "packdep" package, it's very easy to find out how many of the packages on CRAN have *no* reverse dependencies: library(packdep) d1 <- map.depends() c <- dependencies(d1) sum(c$reverse==0)/nrow(c) 66%. Furthermore, I would guess that orphaned packages would be more likely to be in this 66%. What about exempting packages with any reverse dependencies from the auto-orphanization process? Ben Bolker ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
