[R-pkg-devel] Resubmitting Archived Packages
I hesitate to prolong this part of the conversation, but ... ... when CRAN says "issues need fixing before [DATE]" (e.g. see https://hadley.github.io/cran-deadlines/), is that technically "on or before" or "strictly before"? Without worrying about time zones at the moment, if my deadline is 2026-01-01 and I upload a new version of my package sometime on 2026-01-01, am I OK? Or do I need to have uploaded a version on the previous day? cheers Ben Bolker
On 2025-12-11 6:38 p.m., Kenny, Christopher wrote:
Thank you both for your responses. The deadline had not passed at the time the package was removed. It was before the deadline at every single point on Earth. He removed the package early. It?s an error, plain and simple. I'm happy to share the email with the deadline if that would help. Thank you also for reviewing the update to geomander. (On the point of manual review, the package goes to newbies, but based on the speed of the response, it may not take an entire human review in the same way as other packages.) Best, Chris
________________________________________ From:?Uwe Ligges <ligges at statistik.tu-dortmund.de> Sent:?Thursday, December 11, 2025 6:24 PM To:?Kenny, Christopher <christopherkenny at fas.harvard.edu>; R Package Development <r-package-devel at r-project.org> Subject:?Re: [R-pkg-devel] Resubmitting Archived Packages On 11.12.2025 20:07, Kenny, Christopher wrote: Hello all, I was looking for advice on best practices for resubmitting packages that were archived. This morning, Brian Ripley erroneously archived one of my packages (geomander) prior to the deadline to fix a broken example. He then archived its reverse dependencies a few minutes later. Why erroneously? Your deadline passed. A new deadline was set for the reverse dependencies, but as mail to the maintainer bounced, that new deadline was not needed as the reverse dependencies got archived for themselves as they are unmaintained. Given that CRAN is closing for the winter soon, I would like to fix this issue quickly. I have already resubmitted geomander this morning, as I had originally planned. However, as the packages are archived, each now must undergo a manual review, which takes more time. Is it acceptable to submit the other downstream packages while the first is awaiting manual checks, as long as they are submitted in order of the dependency tree? As the original package had only a broken example and the reverse dependencies were actively passing checks, the review should be simple. Please submit geomander and get it accepted first. The others will be auto-archived otherwise. Best, Uwe Ligges I would appreciate any advice or wisdom on how to reupload them expeditiously. Best, Chris christophertkenny.com?- christopherkenny at fas.harvard.edu Christopher T. Kenny,?PhD Postdoctoral Research Associate, Data-Driven Social Science, Princeton University ______________________________________________ R-package-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel ______________________________________________ R-package-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Dr. Benjamin Bolker Professor, Mathematics & Statistics and Biology, McMaster University Director, School of Computational Science and Engineering > E-mail is sent at my convenience; I don't expect replies outside of working hours.