Hmm, that's fair enough Ben, I stand corrected. I will say that this seems to be a pretty "soft" recommendation, as these things go, given that it isn't tested for by R CMD check, including with the -as-cran extensions. In principle, it seems like it could be, similar checks are made in package code for inappropriate external-package-symbol usage/
Either way, though, I suppose I have a number of packages which have been invisibly non-best-practices compliant for their entire lifetimes (or at least, the portion of that where they had tests/vignettes...). Best, ~G On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 2:22 PM Ben Bolker <bbol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry if this has been pointed out already, but some relevant text > from > > https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.html#Suggested-packages > > > Note that someone wanting to run the examples/tests/vignettes may not > have a suggested package available (and it may not even be possible to > install it for that platform). The recommendation used to be to make > their use conditional via if(require("pkgname")): this is OK if that > conditioning is done in examples/tests/vignettes, although using > if(requireNamespace("pkgname")) is preferred, if possible. > > ... > > > Some people have assumed that a ‘recommended’ package in ‘Suggests’ > can safely be used unconditionally, but this is not so. (R can be > installed without recommended packages, and which packages are > ‘recommended’ may change.) > > > > On 5/4/21 5:10 PM, Gabriel Becker wrote: > > Hi Henrik, > > > > A couple of things. Firstly, so far asI have ever heard, it's valid that > a > > package have hard dependencies in its tests for packages listed only in > > Suggests. In fact, that is one of the stated purposes of Suggests. An > > argument could be made, I suppose, that the base packages should be under > > stricter guidelines, but stats isn't violating the letter or intention of > > Suggests by doing this. > > > > > > Secondly, I don't have time to dig through the make files/administration > > docs, but I do know that R CMD check has --no-stop-on-error, so you can > > either separately or as part of make check, use that option for stats > (and > > elsewhere as needed?) and just know that the stats tests that depend on > > MASS are "false positive" (or, more accurately, missing value) test > > results, rather than real positives, and go from there. > > > > You could also "patch" the tests as part of your build process. > Somewhere I > > worked had to do that for parts of the internet tests that were unable to > > get through the firewall. > > > > Best, > > ~G > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 1:04 PM Henrik Bengtsson < > henrik.bengts...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Two questions to R Core: > >> > >> 1. Is R designed so that 'recommended' packages are optional, or > >> should that be considered uncharted territories? > >> > >> 2. Can such an R build/installation be validated using existing check > >> methods? > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Dirk, it's not clear to me whether you know for sure, or you draw > >> conclusions based your long experience and reading. I think it's very > >> important that others don't find this thread later on and read your > >> comments as if they're the "truth" (unless they are). I haven't > >> re-read it from start to finish, but there are passages in 'R > >> Installation and Administration' suggesting you can build and install > >> R without 'recommended' packages. For example, post-installation, > >> Section 'Testing an Installation' suggests you can run (after making > >> sure `make install-tests`): > >> > >> cd tests > >> ../bin/R CMD make check > >> > >> but they fail the same way. The passage continuous "... and other > >> useful targets are test-BasePackages and test-Recommended to run tests > >> of the standard and recommended packages (if installed) respectively." > >> (*). So, to me that hints at 'recommended' packages are optional just > >> as they're "Priority: recommended". Further down, there's also a > >> mentioning of: > >> > >> $ R_LIBS_USER="" R --vanilla > >>> Sys.setenv(LC_COLLATE = "C", LC_TIME = "C", LANGUAGE = "en") > >>> tools::testInstalledPackages(scope = "base") > >> > >> which also produces errors when 'recommended' packages are missing, > >> e.g. "Failed with error: 'there is no package called 'nlme'". > >> > >> (*) BTW, '../bin/R CMD make test-BasePackages' gives "make: *** No > >> rule to make target 'test-BasePackages'. Stop." > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> /Henrik > >> > >> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 12:22 PM Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 4 May 2021 at 11:25, Henrik Bengtsson wrote: > >>> | FWIW, > >>> | > >>> | $ ./configure --help > >>> | ... > >>> | --with-recommended-packages > >>> | use/install recommended R packages [yes] > >>> > >>> Of course. But look at the verb in your Subject: no optionality _in > >> testing_ there. > >>> > >>> You obviously need to be able to build R itself to then build the > >> recommended > >>> packages you need for testing. > >>> > >>> Dirk > >>> > >>> -- > >>> https://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org > >> > >> ______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > ______________________________________________ > 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