[R-pkg-devel] Submitting CRAN packages with hard-to-meet dependencies

Dirk Eddelbuettel edd at debian.org
Wed Apr 20 15:02:14 CEST 2016

On 18 April 2016 at 20:48, boB Rudis wrote:
| So, how do we create a solid alternative to CRAN? github drat wld have
| been impossible at my previous gig (for good reasons). Is it time to
| try to get rOpenSci to be a legit CRAN alternative? Add enough process
| around it to support things like this (i.e. a less narrowly focused
| Bioconductor)? Package complexities are only going to grow, not
| shrink. Such is this brave, new data science world we live in.

You are just talking the talk which is cheap and doesn't get us anywhere.  If
you believe so strongly that this needs to be done, can you not rent a few gb
of diskspace on S3 and get going?  Walk the walk!

I (greatly) appreciate what CRAN has done for us, and continues to do for
us. It is a gift economy, and with their free labour we get their rules, for
better (mostly) or worse (rarely).  I happen to disagree with one or two
minor aspects and may end up putting a support package or two onto a github
drat rather than CRAN itself.  But as I continue to benefit greatly from CRAN
as both a user and as a package author, I am (mostly) happy to cooperate.
They have executed a pretty relentless drive for higher code quality, more
and better code checks, better licensing conformance and more.

And I honestly don't give a damn if some Brooklyn or Portland hipsters
complain about Title Case nagging as that too has merit (as it makes
aggregation pages more readable).

<end of rant>


http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org

More information about the R-package-devel mailing list