Re: Debian R 4.2.2 packages
>>>>> Andreas Tille writes:
> Hi Kurt,
> Am Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 06:43:16PM +0100 schrieb Kurt Hornik:
>>
>> I was about to raise this on behalf of the CRAN team: ideally, this
>> would be synced with the CRAN regular checks, and packages which
>> currently/already fail the Debian regular checks for r-release or
>> r-patched be excluded for possible regressions.
> Regarding tests on Debian packages I just want to give a short summary
> from my perspective.
> 1. There where cases that Debian tests had uncovered issues in CRAN
> packages - or at least create sufficient noise that the issue
> is brought on the table (like in this case).
> 2. We are not testing the CRAN code but the Debian package (and its
> dependencies) which is slightly different.
> 3. Having tests on the Debian packages speeds up migration of the
> packages to testing.
>> Btw, one more issue: it seems there is no active tracking of CRAN
>> archivals within the r-cran-* packages. Currently running
>>
>> lines <- system("apt-cache search r-cran- | grep ^r-cran-",
>> intern = TRUE)
>> p <- sub(" .*", "", lines)
>> z <- tools::CRAN_package_db()
>> setdiff(p, paste0("r-cran-", tolower(z$Package)))
>>
>> finds
>>
>> [1] "r-cran-gregmisc" "r-cran-amore"
>> [3] "r-cran-cgdsr" "r-cran-conting"
>> [5] "r-cran-diagnosismed" "r-cran-discriminer"
>> [7] "r-cran-epicalc" "r-cran-ffield"
>> [9] "r-cran-fitcoach" "r-cran-freetypeharfbuzz"
>> [11] "r-cran-fts" "r-cran-genabel"
>> [13] "r-cran-genabel.data" "r-cran-gmaps"
>> [15] "r-cran-gwidgets" "r-cran-gwidgetstcltk"
>> [17] "r-cran-kedd" "r-cran-lasso2"
>> [19] "r-cran-manipulatewidgets" "r-cran-medadherence"
>> [21] "r-cran-parsetools" "r-cran-randomfields"
>> [23] "r-cran-rcppmlpack" "r-cran-rniftilib"
>> [25] "r-cran-rook-examples" "r-cran-sdmtools"
>> [27] "r-cran-seroincidence" "r-cran-sparql"
>> [29] "r-cran-tcr" "r-cran-testextra"
>> [31] "r-cran-treescape" "r-cran-unbalanced"
>> [33] "r-cran-zelig" "r-cran-zeligchoice"
>> [35] "r-cran-zeligei" "r-cran-zeligverse"
>>
>> Clearly, these should also not be part of any regression testing.
> According to item 2. above I personally think that specifically
> these packages need to be tested since they are not tested on
> CRAN any more. How should we otherwise know whether they are
> working or not?
Andreas,
These packages were *archived* from CRAN because they no longer worked
properly. If at all, they should be dropped from Debian.
Now, some CRAN package maintainers do not take their archival deadline
quite seriously, and packages can come back alive within a few days of
their archival. But after e.g. 28 days they are generally gone for
good.
I could set up a cron job which reports such cases?
Best
-k
> However, it might be a good time to discuss whether we really
> need those packages that are removed from CRAN. So thanks a
> lot for this list which we should review in the near future.
> Kind regards
> Andreas.
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: