On 3 August 2016 at 13:44, Duncan Murdoch wrote: | On 03/08/2016 11:17 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > | > On 3 August 2016 at 16:21, Uwe Ligges wrote: | > | | > | | > | On 03.08.2016 16:14, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > | > | > | > On 3 August 2016 at 16:00, Uwe Ligges wrote: | > | > | On 03.08.2016 14:24, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > | > | > Then again, users of TravisCI know that just toggling | > | > | > | > | > | > _R_CHECK_FORCE_SUGGESTS_=FALSE | > | > | | > | > | I was travelling, hence a delayed response: | > | > | | > | > | Why users of TravisCI? It is documented in the manual. Setting it to | > | > | > | > Because Travis breaks your check as it works in a cleanroom with only the | > | > specified packages installed. As it (and that is the gist of my argument) | > | > should ... | > | | > | No, because if I suggest a package, I want to check also the code that | > | uses a suggested package. So I have to have the package installed. | > | > But then you are treating Suggests as Depends and installing irregardless. | | No, it is different from Depends. | | Depends implies something will be attached to the search list. Suggests | doesn't. It is more like Imports, but without importing anything.
I am aware of the distinction. I was talking, or trying to talk, about 'conditional' versus 'unconditional' "presence of packages" if you wish. Depends/Import are the latter, Suggests is the former. Or it would be if we chose to treat it like that. My gripe is that we don't. | CRAN chooses to test in an environment where all Suggested packages are | available. They could do more testing (and I am pretty strongly in | favour of that), e.g. *also* test in an environment where none of them | are available. But lots of packages will fail those tests, hence my | request to you (not a gambit, I'm not playing a game) to estimate how | many, and work out how to fix those packages. I did send a PR to one such package in the past. The package maintainers ignored it. So I stopped. I think I'll do the same with this thread now. | Doing more testing will make it harder to get a package accepted on | CRAN, but hopefully will mean that if it makes it there, it will be of | better quality. | | The other thing I am trying to do is to work out ways to spread out the | work that CRAN does to other people. I believe the current model will | not last another year, and I'd rather that it didn't collapse | completely. This is unlikely to be my only request for help from people | on this list. I actually suggested doing the exact amount of tests, but it differently by not forcing Suggests: in. I have the feeling you seem to think that I want to create more work not less. I am not. I once thought I could influence the 'powers that be' to interpret the policy they have written (ie Writing R Extensions) differently. But I guess I was wrong. Dirk | > | > No, CRAN could just flip that toggle and run once. | > | | > | I do not get it: It won't make much of a difference because I have most | > | packages installed. It is only a diffrence for suggested packages that | > | > Which is a normal shortcut to make your life easier ... but not what other | > systems do. Travis CI runs start from scratch with an empty base. So does | > Debian for package build (and for subsequent tests such as the | > reproducibility tests). In each case only listed packages get installed. | > | > When we let R do its business Suggests is (currently) interpreted as | > Depends. I continue to claim that is not what it is for. | > | > As Thomas pointed out, Suggests: seems to be overloaded already to two | > distinct use cases. | > | > | are not available for my platform, and toggling it means checks always | > | fail then. | > | | > | | > | > What Duncan suggested was (as I understand it an empirically-driven | > | > assessment of what it would take to get from here (set to FALSE, tolerate bad | > | > Policy) to there (set to TRUE, IMHO better Policy adherence). | > | | > | You do not understand the environment variable, I believe. | > | > That is of course entirely possibly but it also seems that some of us in this | > discussion are continuously talking past each other. I tried to make my case | > but seemingly failed to explain it clearly enough. | | That's the nature of the medium. You need to be prepared to say the | same thing in different ways so that dense people like me understand them. | | Duncan Murdoch | -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
