Message-ID: <205cea6a-d9c8-15eb-e38a-80826c32ce80@beuth-hochschule.de>
Date: 2021-02-02T14:13:08Z
From: Ulrike Grömping
Subject: [R-pkg-devel] Undeclared packages ... in Rd xrefs
In-Reply-To: <975c63af-0da6-7d21-05e4-23246d0bae1c@gmail.com>
Am 02.02.2021 um 02:38 schrieb Duncan Murdoch:
> On 01/02/2021 5:03 p.m., Ulrike Gr?mping wrote:
>> Dear package developeRs,
>>
>> under the Fedora clang checks, I find the note
>>
>> "Undeclared packages ?FrF2?, ?DoE.wrapper?, ?sfsmisc?, ?DoE.MIParray?,
>> ?planor? in Rd xrefs"
>>
>> for my package DoE.base. I understand that package planor has been
>> archived from CRAN; I don't understand what is wrong with the other
>> xrefs; only the R-Devel Fedora clang flavor seems to complain, and I did
>> not find an explanation in the section on cross references in Writing R
>> Extensions. Can someone explain the meaning of this note?
>
> There's a line in the Writing R Extensions manual section 2.5
> Cross-refernces for R-devel that says:
>
> "Packages referred to by these ?other forms? should be declared in the
> DESCRIPTION file, in the ?Depends?, ?Imports?, ?Suggests? or
> ?Enhances? fields."
>
> The other forms are the forms of links to other packages.? So
> presumably you don't mention those packages in your DESCRIPTION file.?
> Generally that means they should be listed in Suggests, which doesn't
> force them to be installed, but they will be installed during tests.?
> You might also argue they should be in Enhances, though that seems a
> worse fit.
>
> Duncan Murdoch
Thank you for the explanation! I will remove the xref to sfsmisc
(because it does not make sense to suggest that package). The three
other still available packages all depend on or import DoE.base. Thus,
if I incorporate them in Suggests, I will create a circular dependence
structure. Doesn't that create problems?
Ulrike Gr?mping