[Rd] Dependencies of packages' CHECK....

[Allen S. Rout]

> On Sep 2, 2009, at 2:53 , Allen S. Rout wrote:
>
>> I'm working to automate the building of RPM packages for CRAN &c.
>> In the process, I'm trying to get a sense of the correct
>> dependencies.
>>
>> [...] 
>>
>> In other words, to check properly, I need to treat Suggests and
>> Imports as Depends.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> So: does this seem silly, or is that just The Way It is?


Uwe Ligges <ligges at statistik.tu-dortmund.de> writes:

> Yes, it is the way it is says the Windows binary package maintainer.

Simon Urbanek <simon.urbanek at r-project.org> writes:

> [ ... Yep ... ] 


OK, thanks.  Clear is good. :) There followed some offline discussion
with Simon, in which he patiently relieved me of some measure of
ignorance.

I'm chewing on this so hard because I want to do things The Right Way.
Here's the Most Right I've gotten so far; Please correct and/or throw
vegetables as indicated.



1) Express binary package dependencies according to Depends and Imports.
   I'll call this the 'narrow dependency graph'. 

2) As part of the binary package build process, run CHECK
   with R_CHECK_FORCE_SUGGESTS = false. 

I'll pull nomenclature out of my ear and call these "built" but not
"checked".

3) Build all binary packages which are downstream according to all of
   Depends, Imports, Suggests, and Extends.  I'll call this the 'broad
   dependency graph'.

4) Install all the packages in the broad dependency graph.

5) for each package in the broad graph, run CHECK with
   R_CHECK_FORCE_SUGGESTS=true.

Then the affected packages are "checked".  Perhaps this can be noted
with a signature.



I'd like to get at least to "Well, that doesn't sound too stupid"
before I turn around trying to sell that evolution to the RPM-flavored
list. :)



- Allen S. Rout