Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think we need an option to R CMD check rather than a new field in the > DESCRIPTION. Currently a package could be mentioned for any of these > reasons: > > 1. To make functions, examples or vignettes work > 2. To allow optional functionality in functions, examples or vignettes. > 3. Because it contains complementary functions. > > I don't think we really need to worry about 3: it should be contained > in 1 or 2, if reasonably complete examples are given. > > Case 1 is handled by Depends.
I think there is an important distinction between a dependency needed for the package to function and a dependency needed to demonstrate said functionality via an example or vignette. The former is what Depends is about, the latter is something else (Suggests). > An author should check case 2 both with and without the suggested > package. A user might be satisfied with a simple check "as things > currently stand", or might want a stringent check like the author wants. > The author can't know that, because it will depend on the user. > > So I don't think this is something that should be changed in > DESCRIPTION. There should be an option to R CMD check to include or > exclude packages mentioned in the Suggests entry. (I'd suggest a 3 > level option: check as though they are not available, check as > currently installed, require that they be available.) I like this approach and agree in general that a solution involving changes to R CMD check might be the best as opposed to adding fields. + seth ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
