On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 11:29:33 -0400 Noah Greifer <noah.grei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is including these packages filling the DESCRIPTION with unnecessary > dependencies that are automatically satisfied, or is it being > helpfully explicit about the packages your package relies on? Here's a comment from the part of R CMD check that checks for NAMESPACE dependencies unstated in DESCRIPTION: >> Not clear whether we want to require *all* namespace package >> dependencies listed in DESCRIPTION, or e.g. just the ones on >> non-base packages. Do the latter for time being ... >> Actually we need to know at least about S4-using packages, >> since we need to reinstall if those change. So the answer is maybe. Personally, I opt for listing even the base packages explicitly, but it's a choice. Duncan's quote from WRE hints that this may be enforced in the future. I do find it a bit strange that not listing methods as a dependency in DESCRIPTION doesn't lead to complaints from R CMD check, because it does seem that the code excludes methods (and stats4) from the list of packages that are currently okay not to declare in DESCRIPTION. -- Best regards, Ivan ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel