search

ropensci / dev_guide

rOpenSci Packages: Development, Maintenance, and Peer Review
https://devguide.ropensci.org
Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International
159 stars 54 forks source link

Recommend pak for package installation? #794

Closed maelle closed 6 months ago

maelle commented 6 months ago

https://pak.r-lib.org/

noamross commented 6 months ago

I don't know about this and don't see a reason to have a preference for it. I get the benefits of pak in some situations, but package installation needs vary pretty widely by use and environment (for instance, pak and renv don't work that well together despite trying), and this is a user preference rather than a developer one. I would worry if for some reason a packages leaned heavily on particular install tools or only worked with certain ones.

noamross commented 6 months ago

Something we might consider is asking authors to make sure that, for compiled code, package binaries are available, be it via CRAN, BioConductor, R-Universe, or CI/self-hosted repositories.

maelle commented 6 months ago

Good point!

pak would be for https://devdevguide.netlify.app/softwarereview_reviewer#preparereview

mpadge commented 6 months ago

I agree with Noam here - pak is only one way, and i think recommending that in any way would be too restrictive, so i'd suggest closing this issue.

maelle commented 6 months ago

R-universe is already mentioned in https://devdevguide.netlify.app/pkg_building#readme

I'll make a PR, but other occurrences of remotes.