Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Relax package path assumptions in remotes:::download_version_url #440

Open
martinstuder opened this issue Sep 23, 2019 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #441
Open

Relax package path assumptions in remotes:::download_version_url #440

martinstuder opened this issue Sep 23, 2019 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #441
Labels
feature a feature request or enhancement

Comments

@martinstuder
Copy link

remotes:::download_version_url assumes that packages in src/contrib/Archive are organized in a flat manner (like on CRAN). Artifactory, however, seems to organize archived packages by having intermediate version folders like src/contrib/Archive/<package_name>/<version>/<package_name>_<version>.tar.gz.

It seems like the package path assumptions could be relaxed to support both models.

@brianrepko
Copy link

Leaving a note here (was looking at re-implementing the old PR for this) - this code (install_version.R) has always depended on a src/contrib/Meta/archive.rds file, which Artifactory does not create (but could add to it's re-indexing algorithm). If the data in the archive.rds is correct then this works without change. Now that install_version takes a range of versions it is virtually impossible to implement this - without webscraping - until Artifactory changes their system.

I'll also note that Artifactory supports virtual repositories (aka merged repositories) which merge a CRAN mirror with an internal repository - the re-indexing for a virtual repository has to produce a merged version of this data for this to work as well. The data in PACKAGES is merged but the data in Meta/archive.rds is not - it is only from the CRAN mirror.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature a feature request or enhancement
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants