[R-pkg-devel] Undeclared packages ... in Rd xrefs

Ulrike Grömping groemp|ng @end|ng |rom beuth-hoch@chu|e@de
Tue Feb 2 15:13:08 CET 2021

Am 02.02.2021 um 02:38 schrieb Duncan Murdoch:
> On 01/02/2021 5:03 p.m., Ulrike Grömping wrote:
>> Dear package developeRs,
>> under the Fedora clang checks, I find the note
>> "Undeclared packages ‘FrF2’, ‘DoE.wrapper’, ‘sfsmisc’, ‘DoE.MIParray’,
>> ‘planor’ in Rd xrefs"
>> for my package DoE.base. I understand that package planor has been
>> archived from CRAN; I don't understand what is wrong with the other
>> xrefs; only the R-Devel Fedora clang flavor seems to complain, and I did
>> not find an explanation in the section on cross references in Writing R
>> Extensions. Can someone explain the meaning of this note?
> There's a line in the Writing R Extensions manual section 2.5 
> Cross-refernces for R-devel that says:
> "Packages referred to by these ‘other forms’ should be declared in the 
> DESCRIPTION file, in the ‘Depends’, ‘Imports’, ‘Suggests’ or 
> ‘Enhances’ fields."
> The other forms are the forms of links to other packages.  So 
> presumably you don't mention those packages in your DESCRIPTION file.  
> Generally that means they should be listed in Suggests, which doesn't 
> force them to be installed, but they will be installed during tests.  
> You might also argue they should be in Enhances, though that seems a 
> worse fit.
> Duncan Murdoch

Thank you for the explanation! I will remove the xref to sfsmisc 
(because it does not make sense to suggest that package). The three 
other still available packages all depend on or import DoE.base. Thus, 
if I incorporate them in Suggests, I will create a circular dependence 
structure. Doesn't that create problems?

Ulrike Grömping

More information about the R-package-devel mailing list