[R-pkg-devel] What to do when a package is archived from CRAN

So are you saying you have to use crates.io and do some extra step during

the Rust community as there doesn't seem to be any accountability with

Yutani,


On Aug 27, 2023, at 2:19 PM, Hiroaki Yutani <yutani.ini at gmail.com> wrote:

Simon,

it's assumed that GitHub history is the canonical source with the

provenance, but that gets lost when pulled into the package.

No, not GitHub. You can usually find the ownership on crates.io. So, if
you want a target to blame, it's probably just a problem of the script to
auto-generate inst/AUTHORS in this specific case. But, clearly, Rust's
ecosystem works soundly under the existence of crates.io, so I think this
is the same kind of pain which you would feel if you use R without CRAN.


Can you elaborate? I have not found anything that would have a list of
authors in the sources. I fully agree that I know nothing about it, but
even if you use R without CRAN, each package contains that information in
the DESCRIPTION file since it's so crucial. So are you saying you have to
use crates.io and do some extra step during the (misnamed) "vendor" step?
(I didn't see the submitted tar ball of plqrl and its release on GitHub is
not the actual package so can't check - thus just trying reverse-engineer
what happens by looking at the dependencies which leads to GitHub).


Sorry for nitpicking.


Sure, good to get the fact straight.

Cheers,
Simon



Best,
Yutani

2023?8?27?(?) 6:57 Simon Urbanek <simon.urbanek at r-project.org>:

Tatsuya,

What you do is contact CRAN. I don't think anyone here can answer your
question, only CRAN can, so ask there.

Generally, packages with sufficiently many Rust dependencies have to be
handled manually as they break the size limit, so auto-rejections are
normal. Archival is unusual, but it may have fallen through the cracks -
but the way to find out is to ask.

One related issue with respect to CRAN policies that I don't see a good
solution for is that inst/AUTHORS is patently unhelpful, because most of
them say "foo (version ..): foo authors" with no contact, or real names or
any links. That seems to be a problem stemming from the Rust community as
there doesn't seem to be any accountability with respect to ownership and
attribution. I don't know if it's because it's assumed that GitHub history
is the canonical source with the provenance, but that gets lost when pulled
into the package.

Cheers,
Simon

PS: Your README says "(Rust 1.65 or later)", but the version condition is
missing from SystemRequirements.

On Aug 26, 2023, at 2:46 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

<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