On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 17:05 -0700, Herve Pages wrote: > Hi there, > > I was wondering why I get the following error message: > > * checking package dependencies ... ERROR > Packages required but not available: > Rmpi > > when I run 'R CMD check' on a package that _suggests_ Rmpi? > Why isn't it OK to not have all the suggested packages installed? > Hi there too,
This has been discussed before: http://tolstoy.newcastle.edu.au/R/devel/05/09/2326.html Then the Core decided to maintain the Mafia style suggestion ("that you can't refuse"), but later seems to have introduced a new field "enhances" which to me looks like a suggestion in the meaning of the word I know: a suggestion that you can refuse. I think that the R-ext description is somewhat confusing and misleading for fields "Requires", "Suggests", "Enhances". The R extension manual "suggests" different situations where the author of the manual thinks that other people would like to use these fields. However, the manual does not clearly say what are the practical and real consequences of selecting a certain entry. It seems that "Requires" means that a package is always required, "Suggests" means that the package is required in check (with a threat of error), but only suggested for normal use, and "Enhances" means that the package only is suggested. It does not matter whether the package really "enhances" anything, but this is the meaning of the word in behaviouristic sense. cheers, jari oksanen > Maybe one of the 3 following behaviours would be more appropriate: > > a) Having the error saying something like: > > Package suggested but not available: > Rmpi > > b) Make this a warning instead of an error. > > c) Don't do anything at all for suggested packages. > > This issue showed up today while I was checking a new Bioconductor package: > the package suggests Rmpi but the vignette and the examples don't use it. If > I remove > Rmpi from the Suggests field then 'R CMD check' runs all the examples and > re-create > the vignette with no problem. Most users will not have Rmpi on their machine > neither > will they be interested in getting into the trouble of installing it. > The package I was checking suggests Rmpi only because it contains 1 function > that tries > to use it if it's installed but will work perfectly fine otherwise. > In this case it seems reasonable to have Rmpi in the Suggests field but this > will > make 'R CMD check' to fail which is problematic in the context of automated > builds :-/ > If 'R CMD check' can't be a little bit more relaxed about this, then I guess > we will > need to remove Rmpi from the Suggests field, but then 'R CMD check' will > complain that: > > * checking for unstated dependencies in R code ... WARNING > 'library' or 'require' calls not declared from: > Rmpi -- "Object-oriented programming is an exceptionally bad idea that could only have been invented in California." -- Edsger Dijkstra ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
