I think the reason is that the standard for 'R CMD check' is that examples in
help pages are guaranteed to be executable by the user (as long as the
requirements are met). There is no way to guarantee this without having the
packages installed. So strictly speaking, the 'Suggested' packages are not
needed by the *user*, but are needed by the *maintainer*.
Perhaps, you differ with the standard itself, but I personally think it's a
good
one.
-roger
Jari Oksanen wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 09:42 -0400, Roger D. Peng wrote:
>
>>I think this needs to fail because packages listed in 'Suggests:' may, for
>>example, be needed in the examples. How can 'R CMD check' run the examples
>>and
>>verify that they are executable if those packages are not available? I
>>suppose
>>you could put the examples in a \dontrun{}.
>>
>
> Yes, that's what I do, and exactly for that reason: if something is not
> necessarily needed (= 'suggestion' in this culture), it should not be
> required in tests. However, if I don't use \dontrun{} for a
> non-recommended package, the check would fail and I would get the needed
> information: so why should the check fail already when checking
> DESCRIPTION?
>
> cheers, jari oksanen
>
--
Roger D. Peng
http://www.biostat.jhsph.edu/~rpeng/
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
