On Jul 12, 2017 4:03 AM, "Georg" <g.schlisio@dukun.de> wrote:
Hi Nils,

I agree that in the first place the AUR should just work.
Therefore we need an appropriate naming scheme for R packages. The Archwiki page on R [0] does not refer to any packages but advocates installing via the internal module management of R.
This might be useful for private scipts and stuff, but since other packages cannot depend on that, we still need R packages in the AUR.

Does anything besides other R packages actually depend on any R packages from the AUR? Assuming the andswer is no, is there any advantage to having R packages in the AUR at all?


The Arch packaging standards [1] do not state anything applicable and there are also no R packaging guidelines at the moment. Looking at the Perl packaging standards [2] I notice, that even though perl packages are (presumably) mostly from CPAN, perl packages are named perl-$modulename.
Thus I think we should set up a wiki page "R packaging guidelines" and fix the R-specific rules there. Once we agreed on those, we can begin adapting packages to the new rules.
Following the example of perl this could well imply a naming scheme like r-$modulename.

That said, I do not have the time to do all this at the moment. I dont use R and its modules at all atm, I just update them when an update comes in. I keep track of updates with a Firefox extension whose name I dont remember now. If you are interested, I can find it out for you.


[0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/R#Installing_R_packages
[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_packaging_standards#Package_naming
[2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Perl_package_guidelines