Re: [Rd] CRAN package with dependencies on Bioconductor

From: Uwe Ligges <ligges_at_statistik.tu-dortmund.de>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:15:46 +0200

Actually I do not understand what is so hard to understand with CRAN policy.

This is:
Any source package on CRAN is build in binary form with R-release/patched and R-oldrelease. This does not happen if you tell your package it requires a particular R version - such as the declaration R (>= 2.13.0) in the Depends field will cause the package not to be build as a binary. Anotehr exception would be if the package does not longer pass the checks and gives an ERROR, in that case we also keep the old version in the binary repository.

On CRAN we assume that R-2.12.x users may want to get a bugfix release of a package without the requirement to upgrade R, hence we distribute new or updates packages for the oldrelease version (which is current R-2.12.x). And if BioC has a different policy, that is fine with us.

Uwe Ligges

On 11.06.2011 10:20, Kornelius Rohmeyer wrote:
> 2011/6/11 Prof Brian Ripley<ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk>:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Kornelius Rohmeyer wrote:
>>> 2011/6/11 Prof Brian Ripley<ripley_at_stats.ox.ac.uk>:
>>>> Note that until May 8 graph was a CRAN packge and the current version was
>>>> 1.30.0. So of course CRAN binary packages built between April 26 and May
>>>> 8
>>>> were built against the current CRAN version of graph, for any version of
>>>> R.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the notice! But if I am not wrong, a version of my package
>>> that was published on May 26 and build therefore after the time period
>>> specified by you still suffers from these version incompatibilities.
>>> (Nevertheless it is of course possible that the problem is only caused
>>> by the migration to Bioconductor and in this case less problematic and
>>> only unfortunate in this one case). Perhaps the version downgrade of
>>> the graph package caused problems?
>>
>>> So you say that the versions of Bioconductor packages on CRAN for
>>> binary builds are already normally the same as you would get by
>>> installing them as binaries from Bioconductor?
>>
>> No, I did not say that.
>
> That means that for a binary package that depends on Bioconductor
> packages you sometimes need a bit of luck to select the correct
> versions of binary Bioconductor packages? Or is there a way to tell
> which (and an easy way to install them)?
>
> Thanks and best regards, Kornelius.
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel_at_r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel



R-devel_at_r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel Received on Sat 11 Jun 2011 - 12:17:16 GMT

This quarter's messages: by month, or sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

All messages

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Sun 12 Jun 2011 - 01:10:18 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel. Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.

list of date sections of archive