On 10/25/2017 11:18 AM, Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
I lean to agree with Yaoyong, because I find it helpful to specify (or read):
Depends: R (>= 3.0.0)
which sends a message that "the code is relying on features in R that
was not available prior to R 3.0.0". Also, if that's the only
dependency y
I lean to agree with Yaoyong, because I find it helpful to specify (or read):
Depends: R (>= 3.0.0)
which sends a message that "the code is relying on features in R that
was not available prior to R 3.0.0". Also, if that's the only
dependency you have, then if it passed R CMD check on R 3.0.0 in
Dear Yaoyong,
Can you remove the R version dependency from your DESCRIPTION file
entirely? That will eliminate the warning, but will also not suggest to
users that they need a newer version of R than is necessary. R 2.3.0 was
released in 2006, so it seems highly unlikely that anyone would be
Dear Lori,
many thanks for your detailed explanations. I think that it makes sense
from Bioconductor maintenance's point of view to require that the R version
of a package should be the same of the R version in a Bioconductor release
which includes the package, because it's the safest option. On t
We strongly recommend the version of R that is used on our builders when
building and checking your package. This is also to ensure that the package
dependencies are also in a version that is compatible with a new package. We
can't guarantee that a package will work with a previous version of
