Re: Debian R 4.2.2 packages
Hi Kurt,
Am Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 06:43:16PM +0100 schrieb Kurt Hornik:
>
> I was about to raise this on behalf of the CRAN team: ideally, this
> would be synced with the CRAN regular checks, and packages which
> currently/already fail the Debian regular checks for r-release or
> r-patched be excluded for possible regressions.
Regarding tests on Debian packages I just want to give a short summary
from my perspective.
1. There where cases that Debian tests had uncovered issues in CRAN
packages - or at least create sufficient noise that the issue
is brought on the table (like in this case).
2. We are not testing the CRAN code but the Debian package (and its
dependencies) which is slightly different.
3. Having tests on the Debian packages speeds up migration of the
packages to testing.
> Btw, one more issue: it seems there is no active tracking of CRAN
> archivals within the r-cran-* packages. Currently running
>
> lines <- system("apt-cache search r-cran- | grep ^r-cran-",
> intern = TRUE)
> p <- sub(" .*", "", lines)
> z <- tools::CRAN_package_db()
> setdiff(p, paste0("r-cran-", tolower(z$Package)))
>
> finds
>
> [1] "r-cran-gregmisc" "r-cran-amore"
> [3] "r-cran-cgdsr" "r-cran-conting"
> [5] "r-cran-diagnosismed" "r-cran-discriminer"
> [7] "r-cran-epicalc" "r-cran-ffield"
> [9] "r-cran-fitcoach" "r-cran-freetypeharfbuzz"
> [11] "r-cran-fts" "r-cran-genabel"
> [13] "r-cran-genabel.data" "r-cran-gmaps"
> [15] "r-cran-gwidgets" "r-cran-gwidgetstcltk"
> [17] "r-cran-kedd" "r-cran-lasso2"
> [19] "r-cran-manipulatewidgets" "r-cran-medadherence"
> [21] "r-cran-parsetools" "r-cran-randomfields"
> [23] "r-cran-rcppmlpack" "r-cran-rniftilib"
> [25] "r-cran-rook-examples" "r-cran-sdmtools"
> [27] "r-cran-seroincidence" "r-cran-sparql"
> [29] "r-cran-tcr" "r-cran-testextra"
> [31] "r-cran-treescape" "r-cran-unbalanced"
> [33] "r-cran-zelig" "r-cran-zeligchoice"
> [35] "r-cran-zeligei" "r-cran-zeligverse"
>
> Clearly, these should also not be part of any regression testing.
According to item 2. above I personally think that specifically
these packages need to be tested since they are not tested on
CRAN any more. How should we otherwise know whether they are
working or not?
However, it might be a good time to discuss whether we really
need those packages that are removed from CRAN. So thanks a
lot for this list which we should review in the near future.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: