Re: [R-pkg-devel] CRAN pending status , left up in the air
Hi all, this is a bit tricky since the documentation on the dashboard comes from an official, authoritative, source: the R journal [1]. "pending: if a decision is pending a response from the package maintainer: If an additional issue was present in the package that we cannot check for in the incoming checks (such as the BLAS issues mentioned in the section above), the maintainer is automatically asked whether these issues have been fixed. Same is true for change of maintainer (or maintainer's mail address) where the old maintainer (old address) is automatically asked to confirm the maintainer change. The answers have to be processed manually." As Dirk explains and as reported in https://github.com/lockedata/cransays/issues/29, it is likely not true anymore but in the absence of further official information, it is difficult to issue a fix. A later issue of the R journal [2] introduces the "waiting" and "newbies" categories but does not expand on the new role of "pending". Best, Hugo [1]: https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2018-1/cran.pdf [2]: https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2019-1/cran.pdf On 19/10/2020 02:18, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: On 18 October 2020 at 20:56, Rafael H. M. Pereira wrote: | The CRAN incoming Dashboard indicates that the status of my package (r5r) | is "pending", which means 'the CRAN maintainers are waiting for an action | on your side. You should check your emails!'. AFAICT the text there is wrong: it corresponds to state 'waiting' as 'pending' means CRAN is pondering the state of the package. Your package has only been there for three (mostly weekend) days which is nothing. I have one 'waiting' for five days now and it is simply (AFAICT) a false positive. Plus, it had already been delayed by a spurious compilation error on their end before that so the total is well over a week now. Very frustrating. But there is exactly zero you or I can do about it. | However, I haven't received any email with guidance on how to proceed. Is | there any CRAN webpage to check the latest check results and get a sense of | what I should be doing? No. I can only suggest to trust official documentation (Writing R Extensions, CRAN Repository Policy) more. Asking here is also better than guessing. Dirk __ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Rd cross-references ... NOTE, Undeclared packages ... in Rd xrefs
On 14/06/2022 01:01, Spencer Graves wrote: > > > On 6/13/22 5:05 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote: >> On 13/06/2022 5:11 p.m., Spencer Graves wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 6/13/22 1:26 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote: On 13/06/2022 12:12 p.m., Spencer Graves wrote: > Hello, All: > > >How do I fix "Rd cross-references ... NOTE > Undeclared packages ‘EnvStats’, ‘drc’, ‘zoo’, ‘prodlim’, ‘plyr’, > ‘TRAMPR’, ‘raster’ in Rd xrefs"? > > >This occurs with > "https://www.r-project.org/nosvn/R.check/r-devel-linux-x86_64-fedora-clang/Ecfun-00check.html"; > > and with > "https://www.r-project.org/nosvn/R.check/r-devel-linux-x86_64-fedora-clang/Ecdat-00check.html";. > > However, this error is not raised on other platforms. My search for > this note produced essentially the same message for other packages but > no advice on how to fix it. > > >These are references to other packages that I do not use in my > packages but that some users may wish to consider. If needed, I will > add them to "Suggests" for the packages. However, that seems overkill, > because I do not use them myself. ??? Section 2.5 of Writing R Extensions says "Packages referred to by these ‘other forms’ should be declared in the DESCRIPTION file, in the ‘Depends’, ‘Imports’, ‘Suggests’ or ‘Enhances’ fields." Of those fields, Suggests looks like the best fit. You'd use Enhances if your package provides "methods for classes from these packages, or ways to handle objects from these packages". >>> >>> >>> GitHub Actions failed after I added those packages to Suggests: >>> >>> >>> https://github.com/sbgraves237/Ecfun/runs/6869516417?check_suite_focus=true >> >> That log doesn't really give much info about what went wrong. Maybe some of the packages in the Suggests list weren't available? > > >Is there a way in GitHub Action to NOT fail when a package is not available -- or at least to give a more useful diagnostic? Hi Spencer and all, Yes, you can set the environment variable _R_CHECK_FORCE_SUGGESTS_. R CMD check will still run even if some suggested packages are missing. Provided no error is raised by your package when one of these Suggests is missing, you should be fine. Best wishes, Hugo > > >There probably is, but I don't know how to find the right manual to read nor any better place to ask for help with that than here. > > >Thanks, sg > >> >> 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
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Logical Inconsistency of check regarding URL?
Dear Michael, I second Ivan's suggestion to use a custom domain on your GitHub Pages website and I also want to add that this solves your certificate issue as a nice side-effect. GitHub will automatically create a certificate for you, for free, via Let's Encrypt: https://github.blog/2018-05-01-github-pages-custom-domains-https/ Best, Hugo On 29/11/2022 08:55, Ivan Krylov wrote: Dear Michael, On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 08:19:40 +0100 "Dr. habil. Michael Thrun" wrote: URL: https://www.deepbionics.org (moved to https://mthrun.github.io/index) From: DESCRIPTION Status: 301 Message: Moved Permanently Please change http --> https, add trailing slashes, or follow moved content as appropriate. " The "HTTPS and trailing slashes" part is a red herring. The idea is to only have URLs in your package that return HTTP code 200. The website https://www.deepbionics.org redirects to https://mthrun.github.io/index, which is, strictly speaking, against the letter of the rules [1]. Websites that redirect from http://... to https://... and from .../website/path to .../website/path/ (and the other way around) are a common cause of such redirects, which is why Uwe mentioned it (I think), but this isn't the reason for the redirection at https://www.deepbionics.org. I think you could make the argument that https://www.deepbionics.org is the canonical URL for the website and the way it _currently_ works (by returning a 301 redirect to https://mthrun.github.io/index) is an implementation detail that should be ignored, but I don't know whether CRAN reviewers would agree. I think it should be possible to set up your domain and GitHub Pages to serve mthrun.github.io at the address www.deepbionics.org without a redirection [2], but I've never tried it myself. First, do we not communicate with CRAN anymore through the submission procedure of the package? If not, which is the correct line of communication in such a case? There was a case once when the reviewer was mistaken (they were in the process of heroically clearing out the "newbies" queue that almost reached 80 packages, aged 10 days and more, all by themselves, so a certain amount of fatigue was to be expected) and I was able to argue my way out of a rejection by replying to the reviewer. I think that the way to go is to either submit a package with requested changes and an incremented version or to reply-to-all and argue the case for the package as it is now. Third, why can I have a CRAN package "DataVisualizations" with this URL online, another one named "GeneralizedUmatrix" uploaded the same day with the same URL, which both are OK, but the URL in "DatabionicSwarm" is not? Has anything changed recently regarding the way your domain is set up? It really is strange that the check passed for one of the packages but not the other. Fifth, why do we need https/TLS/SSL? I think you're right (see also: depriving an existing website of its certificate as a means of censorship), but the browser makers may end up destroying TLS-less workflow for us in a few years. Thankfully, it's not a requirement of CRAN to have only HTTPS links. I probably shouldn't continue this topic because the question of "how the Web should function" tends to result in pointlessly heated debates. __ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
