Dear Dirk and Duncan, Thanks a lot for your clarifications. Both of your explanations make sense. Indeed, I would rather not have any other packages depend on the data package, at least not for the time being, in case I find good reasons to make modifications in the data package.
But it makes sense to try to pass the auto checks as much as possible. I will work towards trying to avoid ::: Best wishes, Rafa > El 2 may 2021, a las 16:29, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> > escribió: > > On 02/05/2021 8:44 a.m., Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: >> On 2 May 2021 at 10:12, Ayala Hernandez, Rafael wrote: >> | Following Dirk's suggestion below, I have recently added a data package as >> a drat repository for my asteRisk package, placing it under Suggests in the >> main package. >> | In order to keep the code tidy and know exactly when I’m accessing the >> data in the data package, I access all the data in the data package as >> asteRiskData:::Item >> Why would that be 'tidy'? >> Just use two colons as usual for things exported from your data package, and >> export everythng that your code package uses from it. The ':::' idiom is not >> to be used across package, ie don;t use in package B to access content from >> A. Which is what R CMD check is telling your here: "don't do this". > > I wouldn't call it "tidy", but there are some possible reasons to do this. > One may apply here: > > - You may not want other packages to depend on the data, because you would > like to be able to change it without notice. Normally you'd do this by > making it a private part of the main package, but if it's really big, that's > discouraged. So the use described here may be reasonable. > > I can't spot it in the docs right now, but I believe CRAN will allow the use > of ::: if the package it is importing from has the same maintainer as the > main package. > > The problem here is that CRAN doesn't know who is the maintainer for > asteRiskData. That package is not on CRAN, and they don't look on other > repositories to figure it out. > > So the answer to Rafael's original question is that I think CRAN would agree > to this use if you have a good reason for it, but you'll need to explain that > reason in your submission message, and it will need manual intervention to > ignore the automatic rejection. > > Following Dirk's advice is thus advisable (passing the auto checks is better > than requiring manual intervention on every update), but not strictly > necessary. > > Duncan Murdoch > > ______________________________________________ > 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
