On 2024-09-23 4:13 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote:
Hmmm. Assuming the previous version of the package (without the
extensions/updates) avoids all of the testing errors, I would say that
RAW ("rules as written") the only constraint I can see on submitting a
"rollback" version of the package would be the CRAN request for
updates “no more than every 1–2 months".
I think the original package wouldn't have been archived unless it was failing tests and the author didn't address the failures.
Duncan Murdoch
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/policies.html But an e-mail to the CRAN maintainers (if none reply on-list) seems appropriate. On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 3:49 PM Eric Giunta <egiu...@ksu.edu> wrote:Hello all, Recently I submitted a large update to the package I maintain and was unable to resolve the testing errors prior to it being archived. I've been unable to reproduce the errors, so I expect to have to setup my own fedora_clang virtual machine to debug my package. Ideally I'd want a previous version to be more easily available while I figure out my issues. Is it against CRAN policy to resubmit an earlier version of an archived package, assuming I fully explain what led to the archival and re-submission in the submission comment? I'm sorry if this has already been asked, I couldn't find an answer online and wanted to check before resubmitting anything. Thank you for your time, Eric ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
