There is nothing official about that term. However, the meaning as intended by the package authors seems pretty clear to me, and if some organization decides not to allow software that is not being maintained to be relied upon then that is their decision. I don't think slapping a different label on "I am not fixing this hot mess" is going to change that organization's stance, and expecting the author to play that game is unreasonable.
Welcome to the downside of package interdependencies. I highly recommend that you migrate away from plyr, either by absorbing the key functions you need from it or by relying on different packages. On September 21, 2021 8:15:28 AM PDT, "Lenth, Russell V" <russell-le...@uiowa.edu> wrote: >I received a request that I remove the 'plyr' package from the Imports for my >package, because plyr is retired. Indeed, the README file for plyr states: > > > plyr is retired: this means only changes necessary to keep it on CRAN > will be made. > > We recommend using dplyr (for data frames) or purrr (for lists) instead. > >This says "retired" but it also suggests that plyr will continue to be >maintained. And that is a good thing because plyr has over 700 direct >reverse-dependents, and almost 2000 if we include indirect reverse >dependencies. > >So it seems to me that it isn't a problem at all to have my package import >plyr. I use its 'aaply' and 'alply' functions, which are like 'apply' but work >for any dimensional array. There are no obvious replacements in purrr or >dplyr, and if there were and I used them instead, it would increase my >indirect dependencies to several packages that are not actually needed. > >The user requesting that I drop plyr states that this is needed to satisfy >regulatory needs, that it is problematic to qualify my package since it >imports a retired package. > >So my question is: Is there a specific meaning in CRAN for "retired," or is >that just loose language from the plyr developers? I did not find the term in >"CRAN Repository Policy" or "Writing R Extensions." It appears that my user or >their regulatory agency thinks it means that it could be deprecated in the >near future. (If that is indeed what it means, there are 700+ packages in >trouble!) Otherwise, perhaps the appropriate request may be to the plyr >maintainers to modify how they describe its status, so as to avoid confusion. > >Russ Lenth >University of Iowa > >______________________________________________ >R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list >https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
