[R-pkg-devel] What to do when a package is archived from CRAN
Sarah, Thanks for taking a look at this. But what we see in the results page is the compiled size, and I think it is common for it to be huge. For example, looking at the arrow package 12.0.1.1 <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=arrow <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=arrow>>, the size of the lib seems to be 41MB. Indeed, the size of the first submission of prqlr 0.5.0, which vendored all dependent crates, was 12 MB, which of course was not accepted by CRAN. The second submission, which was eventually accepted, was submitted with the vendored tarballs removed, so the source package was smaller. (By the way, I wrote the following comment when I submitted the second time I removed the tarball, which I thought asked for explicit permission to download, but I don't know if that was actually read by CRAN. <https://github.com/eitsupi/prqlr/pull/161/commits/9aba66647fa5e48da0a5983643a4df001721b3f7>) Best, Tatsuya
On 2023/08/27 5:29, Sarah Goslee wrote:
Hi, You can generally see what the reason is from the archive page, where it says: A summary of the most recent check results can be obtained from the check results archive. On that page,https://cran-archive.r-project.org/web/checks/2023/2023-08-19_check_results_prqlr.html is the note: Version: 0.5.0 Check: installed package size Result: NOTE installed size is 18.5Mb sub-directories of 1Mb or more: libs 18.2Mb This is too big for CRAN, see https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/policies.html quoted here: Packages should be of the minimum necessary size. Reasonable compression should be used for data (not just .rda files) and PDF documentation: CRAN will if necessary pass the latter through qpdf. As a general rule, neither data nor documentation should exceed 5MB (which covers several books). A CRAN package is not an appropriate way to distribute course notes, and authors will be asked to trim their documentation to a maximum of 5MB. Where a large amount of data is required (even after compression), consideration should be given to a separate data-only package which can be updated only rarely (since older versions of packages are archived in perpetuity). Similar considerations apply to other forms of ?data?, e.g., .jar files. Source package tarballs should if possible not exceed 10MB. It is much preferred that third-party source software should be included within the package (as e.g. a vendor.tar.xz file) than be downloaded at installation: if this requires a larger tarball a modestly increased limit can be requested at submission. Sarah On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 4:26?PM SHIMA Tatsuya<ts1s1andn at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I noticed that my submitted package `prqlr` 0.5.0 was archived from CRAN on 2023-08-19. <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=prqlr> I submitted prqlr 0.5.0 on 2023-08-13. I believe I have since only received word from CRAN that it passed the automated release process. <https://github.com/eitsupi/prqlr/pull/161> So I was very surprised to find out after I returned from my trip that this was archived. The CRAN page says "Archived on 2023-08-19 for policy violation. " but I don't know what exactly was the problem. I have no idea what more to fix as I believe I have solved all the problems when I submitted 0.5.0. Is there any way to know what exactly was the problem? (I thought I sent an e-mail to CRAN 5 days ago but have not yet received an answer, so I decided to ask my question on this mailing list, thinking that there is a possibility that there will be no answer to my e-mail, although I may have to wait a few weeks for an answer. My apologies if this idea is incorrect.) Best, Tatsuya
______________________________________________ R-package-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel