This question is quite common in Bioconductor because of the extensive use
of S4 and because our data are often too big to stay within the size
requirements on software packages (we separate packages into software and
data, with size limits (5MB total size of final source tar ball) on
software, but not data).
The solution we use is to let Foo suggest Foodata and then wrap every
example into
if(require(Foodata)) {
CODE
}
This is exactly one of the possibilities you mention in your post.
As I see it, Foodata has to Depends on Foo because it has data defined
using the classes in Foo. R-exts 1.1.3 says (about the Suggests field)
"The 'Suggests' field uses the same syntax as 'Depends' and lists packages
that are not necessarily needed. This includes packages used only in
examples, tests or vignettes".
Bioc packages I have authored which follows this setup are
minfi/minfiData
bsseq/bsseqData
but there are other examples by other authors (which I cannot recall on top
of my head).
Best,
Kasper
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Daniel Kelley <dan.kel...@dal.ca> wrote:
> I have an issue with a circular package dependence that prevents
> building/checking, and I seek advice on breaking the circle so the packages
> can pass the build-check tests that are required for CRAN submission.
>
> The package pair I'm working with is slow to build, but my tests suggest
> the issue may be general, and so I will explain it in general terms.
>
> Suppose there are two packages:
>
> 1. Foo, a package that defines some data types with S4 classes.
>
> 2. Foodata, a package that provides such datasets, for use by Foo.
>
> With this setup, it seems reasonable that Foo "depends" on Foodata, so the
> data can be used in Foo and its documentation.
>
> Since the data within Foodata are S4 classes as defined in Foo, an attempt
> to build-check Foodata will produce an error unless Foo is present. But
> Foo cannot be built unless Foodata exists, since it depends on it. Thus
> neither Foo nor Foodata can be built and checked.
>
> One solution would be to wrap the Foo documentation examples (and relevant
> Foo code) in require() blocks, and to make Foo "suggest" Foodata, not
> "depend" upon it. My question is whether this is the recommended practice,
> or the common practice.
>
> Thanks in advance to anyone who wishes to offer hints.
>
> PS. The problem arose from an attempt to reduce CRAN load by extracting
> the datasets that had been contained within a previous version of Foo.
>
> PPS. my (slow-building) packages are on github and I can supply details if
> needed.
>
> Dan E. Kelley
> Professor, Oceanography Department
> Dalhousie University, Canada
> dan.kel...@dal.ca<mailto:dan.kel...@dal.ca>
>
>
>
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
>
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
