From 0a92bfcee3cc0d7d79756c5eb9728b9d1a1cfa0f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: paul bochtler <65470117+datapumpernickel@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 15:47:59 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] updated cran comments --- cran-comments.md | 15 +++++---------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/cran-comments.md b/cran-comments.md index 3e52708..93c154f 100644 --- a/cran-comments.md +++ b/cran-comments.md @@ -1,29 +1,24 @@ ## Patch for policy violation -* The package used rappdirs::user_cache_dir for determining the correct cache development. This -has now been replaced with tools::R_user_dir('comtradr', which = 'cache'). +* The package used rappdirs::user_cache_dir for determining the correct cache development. This has now been replaced with tools::R_user_dir('comtradr', which = 'cache'). * The package left a file that resulted from a faulty test in the cache directory. This is not happening anymore. #### Further comments -* I understand that the previous version created some additional files that were annoying to the -CRAN team. Sorry about that. However, I would like to make a few comments that I think might -enhance the process for future submitters. Please take these comments in the light of my relative ignorance concerning the underlying processes. +* I understand that the previous version created some additional files that were annoying to the CRAN team. Sorry about that. However, I would like to make a few comments that I think might enhance the process for future submitters. Please take these comments in the light of my relative ignorance concerning the underlying processes. -1) The documentation of `tools` is wrong. In the help page for the package it specifies `rappdirs` as a valid -tool to specify cache directories. See: https://stat.ethz.ch/R-manual/R-patched/library/tools/html/userdir.html +1) The documentation of `tools` is wrong. In the help page for the package it specifies `rappdirs` as a valid tool to specify cache directories. See: https://stat.ethz.ch/R-manual/R-patched/library/tools/html/userdir.html This almost certainly will lead others astray. --> Maybe you could use your authority as CRAN to let the R-Core Developers know that this is in fact wrong. I have already done the same for the people maintaining `rappdirs` and they have changed their documentation. -2) I do not understand why the package was accepted previously. It adds to the mystery of CRAN that seemingly not all tests that could lead to the removal of a package are done all the time, but just sometimes. Now people have already adopted the package in a previous iteration (version 0.4.0) which also includes the "wrong" cache directory. +2) I do not exactly understand why the package was accepted previously. It adds to the mystery of CRAN that seemingly not all tests that could lead to the removal of a package are done all the time, but just sometimes. Now people have already adopted the package in a previous iteration (version 0.4.0) which also includes the "wrong" cache directory. --> Is there a possibility to run tests that would trigger a removal **consistently** for all submissions? -3) Would it be advisable to restrict write-permissions for users on the CRAN servers? If packages are not allowed to write to the cache directory specified by rappdirs, maybe write-permissions could be restricted so that packages error out instead of creating clutter that the CRAN team has to sweep up after. - +3) Could it be advisable to restrict write-permissions for users on the CRAN servers? If packages are not allowed to write to the cache directory specified by rappdirs, maybe write-permissions could be restricted so that packages error out instead of creating clutter that the CRAN team has to sweep up after. As per usual: Thanks for your work!