Yes, I think that would be enough.
Thank you, Kurt!
Lluís
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 16:35, Kurt Hornik <kurt.hor...@wu.ac.at> wrote:
> >>>>> Lluís Revilla writes:
>
> Lluis,
>
> So in available.packages() I could replace
>
> if (is.null(fields))
> fields <- requiredFields
> else {
> stopifnot(is.character(fields))
> fields <- unique(c(requiredFields, fields))
> }
>
> by someting like
>
> if(is.null(fields))
> fields <- getOption("available_packages_fields")
> if(is.null(fields))
> fields <- requiredFields
> else {
> stopifnot(is.character(fields))
> fields <- unique(c(requiredFields, fields))
> }
>
> ?
>
> Best
> -k
>
>
>
> > Hi all,
> > I have recently been researching how available.packages and
> > install.packages filter packages from repositories with additional fields
> > in their PACKAGES file.
>
> > Currently there are some default filters, but users (and R admins) can
> set
> > up their own filters by passing a list to the fields argument or adding
> > them to the "available_packages_filters" option.
> > But if the fields used by the filters are not read by default, then users
> > must manually add the required fields to each call to available.packages.
>
> > This makes it difficult to use new fields and to control what is
> installed
> > in highly regulated systems which want to use more fields to select what
> is
> > installed.
>
> > Current workarounds considered are:
> > 1) The filtering function requiring new fields intercepts the call to
> > available.packages and adds the desired fields via eval in
> > parent.environment and then adds the filters again.
> > 2) Import new data (remote or local) when filtering packages, merge them
> > and filter accordingly.
> > 3) Suggestions?
>
> > The first solution is complicated, while the second doesn't use the R
> > machinery of tools::write_PACKAGES to set up the repository with all the
> > fields (although how to add more fields to the repository file is a
> > different issue).
>
> > Would it be possible to add a new option to add fields to be read by
> > available.packages, similar to filters?
> > The same approach for fields as for filters would avoid the two
> workarounds
> > mentioned. To match it, the new option could be named
> > "available_packages_fields".
>
> > I look forward to hearing from you,
>
> > Lluís
>
> > [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> > ______________________________________________
> > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
