Rating R Helpers

|> Package review is a nice idea. But you raise a worrying point.
|> Are any of the 'downright dangerous' packages on CRAN?

Don't know about "dangerous", but I would like the opportunity to
provide feedback or to have seen feedback from others when I
contemplating using a package I see on CRAN.  This is particularly
true for package maintainers who seem to have vanished.

Such a "rating" would have a natural place.  I don't see where ratings
for helpers would exist in cyberspace for enquirers to the list.  A
compulsory part of everyone's email signatures?  Don't like that idea.

~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.   
   ___    Patrick Connolly   
 {~._.~}          		 Great minds discuss ideas    
 _( Y )_  	  	        Middle minds discuss events 
(:_~*~_:) 	       		 Small minds discuss people  
 (_)-(_)  	                           ..... Anon
	  
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.

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 --
but there's nothing to stop anyone posting a package full of
statistical nonsense to CRAN, as far as I know.   I'm _not_ suggesting
that R-core should take up this challenge, but this is where ratings
come in.

  Ben Bolker

View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Rating-R-Helpers-tf4925550.html#a14163486
Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

|> 
|> 
|>

|> > 
|> > 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.

best

~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.   
   ___    Patrick Connolly   
 {~._.~}          		 Great minds discuss ideas    
 _( Y )_  	  	        Middle minds discuss events 
(:_~*~_:) 	       		 Small minds discuss people  
 (_)-(_)  	                           ..... Anon
	  
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.

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.