From simon.urbanek at r-project.org  Fri Jan 15 18:34:08 2010
From: simon.urbanek at r-project.org (Simon Urbanek)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:34:08 -0500
Subject: [Rd] optional package dependency
In-Reply-To: <1263575889.26202.22.camel@corn.betterworld.us>
References: <1263535210.26202.16.camel@corn.betterworld.us>
	<e8e755251001142212nd942256i526d63f4858f988c@mail.gmail.com>
	<19280.9467.920615.289850@hornik.net>
	<1263575889.26202.22.camel@corn.betterworld.us>
Message-ID: <B283F9DC-B4D9-4D44-8910-1AE855840FD2@r-project.org>


On Jan 15, 2010, at 12:18 , Ross Boylan wrote:

> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:19 +0100, Kurt Hornik wrote:
>> The idea is that maintainers typically want to
>> fully check their functionality, suggesting to force suggests by
>> default.
> This might be the nub of the problem.  There are different audiences,
> even for R CMD check.
>
> The maintainer probably wants to check all functionality.  Even then,
> there is an issue if functionality differs by platform.
>
> CRAN probably wants to check all functionality.
>
> An individual user just wants to check the functionality they use.
>
> For example, if someone doesn't want to run my package distributed,  
> but
> wants to see if it works (R CMD check), they need to be able to avoid
> the potentially onerous requirement to install MPI.
>

... that what's why you can decide to run check without forcing  
suggests  - it's entirely up to you / the user as Kurt pointed out ...

Cheers,
Simon



[Rd] optional package dependency
Simon Urbanek