Skip to content
Prev 58644 / 63424 Next

install.packages(): About an option for installing archived versions

Duncan,

I am not sure if my arguing was understood given your reply.
First, I was arguing about the existence of the `archive.rds` metadata 
file, maintained by CRAN - not the existence of 
`remotes::install_version()` as a reason for this idea.
Second, `install.packages()` is a function accessing both R core and 
contributed packages, with CRAN being the default repository for the 
latter.
I do not understand the part with the R internals - what does this have 
to do with installing older versions of both core and contributed 
packages?
What kind of work would be unnecessarily here? The existence of such a 
function in a contributed package? (Just to understand your point here)
I know that R is not maintained on GH. "PR" was just a developer term 
referring to a "patch" as its called by some. Even though a "patch" 
sounds more close to "bugfix" than to a general "contribution" meaning.

Also again, `remotes::install_version()` is fine.
However, in my view, this functionality should be part of 
`install.packages()` with a simple argument `version`.
I am not sure if you mean to argue that due to the existence of 
contributed packages, no additions to base R need to be made (anymore).
Following this thinking, base R packages could be retired since there 
are alternatives (often more user-friendly and robust ones) for almost 
every base R function nowadays.

The main advantage of base R is its stability and the fact that it comes 
with the R installation per se.
It often does not shine in terms of user-friendliness or 
type-safetiness.
IMO it would be great to have one function for installing packages (i.e. 
`install.packages()`) that is somewhat flexible, removing the need for 
multiple contributed functions in other packages to solve this every-day 
task.

Also right now I am feeling a bit more like "sorry for asking" instead 
of "hey thanks for contributing - this is a valid question and here are 
our arguments". I am sure many people have had this thought/idea already 
and weren't self confident enough to ask/discuss this.

Thanks for your reply again, appreciated. Maybe the discussion can go on 
a bit, shining a bit more light on this issue.

Patrick
On 6 Jun 2020, at 15:39, Duncan Murdoch wrote: