[R-pkg-devel] long file names in tar

Steven Scott @teve@the@b@ye@|@n @end|ng |rom gm@||@com
Thu Apr 18 20:02:15 CEST 2019

Thanks Dirk,
Yes, I've done the same, and I agree the rules are the rules.  Rules should
be updated when they're no longer helpful, or when their cost outweighs
their benefit.  I'm curious whether that might be the case here.

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:54 AM Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd using debian.org> wrote:

> On 18 April 2019 at 10:37, Steven Scott wrote:
> | My Boom package makes a C++ library available to package authors (mainly
> | me).  The wrapped library is used outside of R and must comply with
> | external style rules such as UseLongDescriptiveNames, and files must be
> | named for the class they contain.  From time to time a
> | LongDescriptiveFileName, when paired with its full directory path,
> exceeds
> | 100 characters.
> |
> | This creates a conflict with CRAN's rules about long file names, which
> | stems from tar.  I'm wondering what this community thinks about asking
> for
> | that rule to be relaxed.  Both gnu tar and posix tar now allow unlimited
> | length filenames, and the ustar format allows names up to 256 characters.
> |
> | I'm interested in the opinions of people on this list about whether this
> | rule has outlived its usefulness.  Thanks.
> There are no "opinions". There is CRAN Repo Policy.
> The BH package your Boom depends upon is actually named BH in part because
> having a two-letter name shrunk the set of files violating this very
> constraint.  Yet at every release I still get to renamed one file, and
> update
> one include statement.  All documented in the ChangeLog.
> So I would change the filenames, and move on.
> Dirk
> --
> http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd using debian.org

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

More information about the R-package-devel mailing list