Yes, I certainly will do that. I've checked on win-builder and the package
seems to pass, so my examples seem to be in good order.
David
On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 at 15:17, Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On 8 December 2018 at 14:41, David Hugh-Jones wrote:
> | Thanks guys. If CRAN already sets FORCE_SUGGESTS = false, then I think I
> | don't have a problem.
>
> I think you still do as long as you ignore Duncan's advice. It's not
> "just"
> about skirting CRAN tests and rules, it is about doing packaging right.
>
> For that, Suggests != Depends and you should test presence of optional
> ppackage just like Duncan showed you.
>
> Dirk
>
>
> | David
> |
> |
> | On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 at 14:36, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com>
> | wrote:
> |
> | > On 08/12/2018 9:28 AM, Hadley Wickham wrote:
> | > > Can you just set _R_CHECK_FORCE_SUGGESTS_=false?
> | > >
> | > > env:
> | > > global:
> | > > # don't treat missing suggested packages as error
> | > > - _R_CHECK_FORCE_SUGGESTS_=false
> | > >
> | > > I am reasonably certain that is what CRAN uses.
> | >
> | > Also make sure that examples fail gracefully if the suggested package
> is
> | > not present, i.e. wrap uses of the suggested package in
> | >
> | > if (requireNamespace(...)) { ... }
>
>
> --
> http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
>
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
