From bbolker at gmail.com  Sat Nov 26 23:58:22 2011
From: bbolker at gmail.com (Ben Bolker)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 22:58:22 +0000
Subject: [Rd] Case: package removed from CRAN, but not orphaned
References: <FCD9A33C859ACC469587CB09DD5C6C71230C6D@GBLONXMB11.corp.amvescap.net>
	<4ECFA755.9020204@statistik.tu-dortmund.de>
	<CAGhLh6HT4sF_Qqe9TmmXTHLdwEZZa_C0mTfcHa7r=wtLZEGLLw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4ECFB0A6.30504@statistik.tu-dortmund.de>
	<CAO1zAVZxYfKVCNgXBAgGc45XXkBS9Vg8Rkvbyj0bU=T59goLQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <loom.20111126T233913-971@post.gmane.org>

Joris Meys <jorismeys <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 
> I agree completely with Uwe on this one. Yet, the idea of Rainer is
> useful if you replace "remove the package" by "orphan the package".
> Some sort of automated orphanization. The package remains available
> that way if I understood it right, and can more easily be adopted by
> another developer that feels responsible. It might also make the
> manual cleanup (i.e. detecting poorly maintained packages without a
> responsive developer) a bit easier. After all, clicking a link once
> every so often to indicate you're still following the package isn't
> too much work for a package developer, and it could help the CRAN
> maintainers. Or am I completely off here?
> 

  Just a tiny update: 

  Thanks to the great new "packdep" package, it's very easy
to find out how many of the packages on CRAN have *no* reverse
dependencies:

library(packdep)
d1 <- map.depends()
c <- dependencies(d1)
sum(c$reverse==0)/nrow(c)

  66%.  Furthermore, I would guess that orphaned packages would be
more likely to be in this 66%.  What about exempting packages with
any reverse dependencies from the auto-orphanization process?

  Ben Bolker



[Rd] Case: package removed from CRAN, but not orphaned
Ben Bolker