Rating R Helpers
On Dec 5, 2007 12:49 AM, Patrick Connolly <p_connolly at slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
On Tue, 04-Dec-2007 at 05:32PM -0800, Ben Bolker wrote: |> |> |> |> S Ellison wrote: |> > |> > Package review is a nice idea. But you raise a worrying point. |> > Are any of the 'downright dangerous' packages on CRAN? |> > If so, er... why? |> > |> > |> >>>> <Bill.Venables at csiro.au> 12/01/07 7:21 AM >>> |> >>I think the need for this is rather urgent, in fact. Most packages are |> >>very good, but I regret to say some are pretty inefficient and others |> >>downright dangerous. |> > |> > |> |> Presumably because the primary requirement for packages being |> accepted on CRAN is that they pass "R CMD check". This is a fine |> minimum standard -- it means that packages will definitely install -- That's not quite true. Package BRugs will go halfway through the installation before a Linux user is given the information that it will not work with Linux. The automated way the packages are listed doesn't manage to collect that bit of information (and that's nothing anyone should be ashamed of). Somewhere for adding information such as that could help avoid the need for many people finding that out for themselves.
The bioconductor packages have the DESCRIPTION file's SystemRequirements field listed on the net so you can know what they are prior to downloading the file. For CRAN packages this information seems not to be shown on the net.