From sfalcon at fhcrc.org  Tue Sep 20 17:11:51 2005
From: sfalcon at fhcrc.org (Seth Falcon)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:11:51 -0700
Subject: [Rd] Shy Suggestion?
In-Reply-To: <43301AF1.9080902@fhcrc.org> (Robert Gentleman's message of "Tue, 
	20 Sep 2005 07:21:37 -0700")
References: <1127222728.21824.15.camel@biol102145.oulu.fi>
	<433011BE.8090007@jhsph.edu>
	<1127224092.21824.20.camel@biol102145.oulu.fi>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.0509201459490.7077@gannet.stats>
	<43301AF1.9080902@fhcrc.org>
Message-ID: <m2d5n3hiyw.fsf@macaroni.local>

On 20 Sep 2005, rgentlem at fhcrc.org wrote:
> As I said above, and will try to emphasize, I really do not want R
> CMD check to do any checking of Uses (unless asked to do
> so). Developers that use Uses need to make sure that their package
> works and passes R CMD check whether the package is there or not.

One of the potential gotchas with the current Suggests and R CMD check
setup is that developers cannot easily test whether or not their package
behaves well (e.g. the examples fail gracefully) when packages listed
in Suggests are not available.

As a package developer, I'd like easy ways to check my package under
the "everything is there" scenario and under the "only the minimum
requirements are available" scenario.

+ seth



[Rd] Shy Suggestion?
Seth Falcon