[Rd] Re R CMD check checking in development version of R
ucfagls at gmail.com
Thu Aug 28 00:01:53 CEST 2014
On 27 August 2014 15:24, Hadley Wickham <h.wickham at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is that the cause of these NOTEs? Is the expectation that if I am using a
> > function from a package, even a package that I have in Depends:, that I
> > have to explicitly declare these imports in NAMESPACE?
> (Otherwise your package won't work if it's only attached and not
> loaded. i.e. if someone does analogue::foo() only the imported
> functions are available, not the functions in packages you depend on)
Cheers Hadley. Thanks for the confirmation, but...
...I don't get this; what is the point of Depends? I thought it was "my
package needs these other packages to work, i.e. be loaded". Hence it is
user error (IMHO ;-) to do `analogue::foo()` without having the
dependencies loaded too.
This check (whilst having found some things I should have imported and
didn't - which is a good thing!) seems to be circumventing the intention of
having something in Depends. Is Depends going to go away?
> (And really you shouldn't have any packages in depends, they should
> all be in imports)
I disagree with *any*; having say vegan loaded when one is using analogue
is a design decision as the latter borrows heavily from and builds upon
vegan. In general I have moved packages that didn't need to be in Depends
into Imports; in the version I am currently doing final tweaks on before it
goes to CRAN I have remove all but vegan from Depends.
Or am I thinking about this in the wrong way?
Gavin Simpson, PhD
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
More information about the R-devel