On 08.05.2016 17:44, Hadley Wickham wrote:
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.
Indeed, such details could be improved.
For spell checking (the original question) I do not care too much,
because you frequently get false positives and CRAN decides by looking
on the list. And we do not want to force users to maintain an extra
list. But perhaps we can discuss whether we add a feature to R that a
list could be provided within the package.
For Notes about the size: Of course, the package itself cannot say that
it is OK to include huge components, otherwise all maintainers would
simply declare that it is OK. So that would need to be maintained on
CRAN. Not sure it makes sense to do that for the few exceptions we allow.
And as you see, then we need to think about exceptions for all sorts of
Notes and how to include that both technically as well as procedural
into the CRAN process.
Anyway, not all CRAN team members are listining here, so perhaps start
to discuss this with R-core (where the current CRAN team is a subset of).
Best,
Uwe
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
