On Dec 8, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Dimitri Liakhovitski <dimitri.liakhovitski at gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you, Marc.
That's helpful!
I think, in this case it's mostly:
That they are virus/malware free.
And that they don't send out some info that they are not supposed to.
Thank you!
Dimitri
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Marc Schwartz <marc_schwartz at me.com> wrote:
On Dec 8, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Dimitri Liakhovitski
<dimitri.liakhovitski at gmail.com> wrote:
Guys,
suddenly, I am being asked for a proof that R packages that are not
'"base" are safe. I've never been asked this question before.
Is there some documentation on CRAN that discusses how it's ensured
that all "official" R packages have been "vetted" and are safe?
Thanks a lot!
--
Dimitri Liakhovitski
Dimitri,
You are going to need to define "safe".
Also, note that the notion of "official R packages" is not defined, other
than for those that bear the copyright of The R Foundation (Base +
Recommended), as per:
https://www.r-project.org/certification.html
That packages are available on CRAN does not infer, implicitly or
explicitly, that the packages are endorsed/certified/validated by any party.
You can review the CRAN Policy here:
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/policies.html.
which provides a standardized framework for CRAN submissions.
Does "safe" mean that they are virus/malware free?
Does "safe" mean that they are extensively tested/validated, bug free and
yield documented evidence of consistent and correct results, possibly having
also been tested for "edge cases"?
Regards,
Marc Schwartz