On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/05/2016 10:47 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: >> >> >> On 8 May 2016 at 16:18, Uwe Ligges wrote: >> | On 08.05.2016 16:13, carlos cinelli wrote: >> | > How should I proceed in this case? >> | >> | Submit to CRAN. >> >> The deeper question is if 'we all' can have a conversation about extending >> the directory layout / format to add things to the packaging >> infrastructure. >> What comes to mind is e.g. >> >> - a spell-checker white list (per Carlos' initial email) >> >> - more generally, 'white list' of warnings R CMD check can be quiet >> about [1] >> >> - more hooks, ie I would like to call roxygen2::roxygenize() as well as >> Rcpp::compileAttributes() when building >> >> - [ This place intentionally left blank. Let me hear other proposals. ] >> >> We have a year to mess things up for R 3.4.0, so anybody else intereted in >> working on this? >> >> Dirk >> >> [1] There is no point in telling me that Rcpp creates a shared library of >> over 1 mb. It has been doing so for years. C++ libraries have a >> footprint. >> > > This gets tricky. You don't want to be told that your shared lib is over 1 > MB, but I'd imagine you'd like to know if it grew over 1000 MB. So really > you'd like to tune that note rather than suppress it, just like Carlos would > like a white list for the spell checker rather than suppressing the spell > check entirely. > > And CRAN has accepted Rcpp even though it generates that note, so it > probably wouldn't object if you set the limit high enough to suppress the > note currently, but it would object if you tried to suppress the note > entirely (because they don't want 1000 MB shared libs either, and don't want > to have to check your package manually). > > So this would require work on CRAN's side to recognize when your requested > suppressions are acceptable. And I'm sure there would be arguments back and > forth, which also suck up CRAN's time and energy. > > The technical implementation is much easier than the procedural one.
Agreed, but currently CRAN has an informal whitelist in their brains which they have to remember when you resubmit a package. It is possible that we could come up with a system that makes life easier for CRAN because they could see the whitelist in a standard format and easily diff with the last submission. This would also make life easier for people like me and Dirk who have to run R CMD check on 1000's of downstream dependencies. We have no idea whether or not we're seeing check issues that are expected or need to be acted upon. Hadley -- http://hadley.nz ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
