FWIW I've been reasonably happy with the revdepcheck package: it's not
base-R, but it's pretty robust (lme4 'only' has 286 dependencies to
check ...) I've had much better luck running it on a remote server
(where the sysadmin is responsive so it's not too much trouble to get
extra system dependencies/Debian packages installed as they become
necessary).
On 2018-11-26 3:42 p.m., Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel
wrote:> Background: I run tools::testInstalledPackage on all packages that
dependend on survival
> (605 as of today) before sending a new release to CRAN. It has a few false
positives which
> I then follow up on.? (Mostly packages with as-yet-incomplete tests in
their inst directory).
>
> ?Issue: testInstalledPackage("mets")? generates an? "Error
in checkVignettes(pkg,
> lib.loc, latex = FALSE, weave = TRUE)" message, which stops my
script.? The source code
> for that package passes R CMD check.
> I can easily work around this in the short term by adding mets to my
do-not-check list.
>
> Footnote: the newer "check_packages_in_dir" routine doesn't
work for me.?? The biggest
> reason is that it doesn't have a way to give a list of packages to
skip.? My little
> desktop box doesn't have every linux library (cryptography, geospatial,
etc.), nor do I
> load up bioconductor; which leads to a boatload of false positives.? I keep
adding things
> but the packages add faster.
>
> Terry T.
>
>
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>