Case: package removed from CRAN, but not orphaned

Ben Bolker · 2011-11-26T22:58:22Z

Joris Meys gmail.com> writes: > > I agree completely with Uwe on this one. Yet, the idea of Rainer is > useful if you replace "remove the package" by "orphan the package". > Some sort of automated orphanization. The package remains available > that way if I understood it right, and can more easily be adopted by > another developer that feels responsible. It might also make the > manual cleanup (i.e. detecting poorly maintained packages without a > responsive developer) a bit ea

Ben Bolker

Sat, Nov 26, 2011 2:58 PM

Joris Meys <jorismeys <at> gmail.com> writes:

Just a tiny update: 

  Thanks to the great new "packdep" package, it's very easy
to find out how many of the packages on CRAN have *no* reverse
dependencies:

library(packdep)
d1 <- map.depends()
c <- dependencies(d1)
sum(c$reverse==0)/nrow(c)

  66%.  Furthermore, I would guess that orphaned packages would be
more likely to be in this 66%.  What about exempting packages with
any reverse dependencies from the auto-orphanization process?

  Ben Bolker

Case: package removed from CRAN, but not orphaned

Thread (8 messages)