From btyner @ending from gm@il@com  Wed Jul 25 13:37:03 2018
From: btyner @ending from gm@il@com (Benjamin Tyner)
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 07:37:03 -0400
Subject: [Rd] Library lib.loc Option Ignored for Dependencies
In-Reply-To: <27252aea-aa35-dab9-f4db-00b3558af3f7@statistik.tu-dortmund.de>
References: <SYAPR01MB25584DFE469B02994EFBEA10CD520@SYAPR01MB2558.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <eebc4452-4bdb-d6d3-b438-dea208ab14b8@gmail.com>
 <23379.24722.804755.262952@stat.math.ethz.ch>
 <235f764d-fe20-e2cd-86a3-15bb14e0ca11@gmail.com>
 <23383.4750.718313.873781@stat.math.ethz.ch>
 <6e156ac6-472b-bae4-e711-b8cde12c0d1a@gmail.com>
 <27252aea-aa35-dab9-f4db-00b3558af3f7@statistik.tu-dortmund.de>
Message-ID: <f20372ed-7d38-3b1d-b2f3-cd44c2a67e66@gmail.com>


On 07/25/2018 04:28 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
>
> Not sure if this is a bug: where is it documented that this works not 
> as above (which is what I would expect)?
The documentation doesn't say one way or the other. But the fact remains 
that base:::.getRequiredPackages2, when provided a non-null lib.loc, 
uses that lib.loc when checking versions of dependencies. So (to me) it 
seems a little incongruous that base:::.getRequiredPackages2 offers this 
functionality but library() doesn't take advantage of it. Moreover, it 
is already passing the 'quietly' argument...
>
> For development puposes, you may want to try some devekopment version 
> of one package agaiunst release versions of the others.
Agreed, in which case I would explicitly load the dependency first 
specifying a custom lib.loc.
> This is the purpose of the above: take spam from ~lib and the other 
> from .libPath().
>
> Best,
> Uwe Ligges
>



[Rd] Library lib.loc Option Ignored for Dependencies
Benjamin Tyner