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
Vulnerability to absence of retiring r-spatial packages #147
Comments
@clnsmth I'll try to address this in my next pull request to dev. |
Please also see https://r-spatial.org/r/2023/04/10/evolution3.html, fix best by June, latest October 2023. |
thanks for the link @rsbivand |
@sokole Because of this change,
The simplest fix would be to add |
And https://r-spatial.org/r/2023/05/15/evolution4.html. Expect package to fail CRAN CMD check with |
See pdil/usmap#70; new |
@clnsmth we have a fix for this, will submit PR this week. |
Updated plot_sites for issue EDIorg#147
* Updated plot_sites for issue #147 * Added sf to suggests * remove size_var from plot_sites update .Rd files * make legend plot only when multiple values exist for at least one of the arguments * further updates for plot_sites fix * plot_sites fix unquoted column calls --------- Co-authored-by: RafaelRangel0 <rafrangel0z6@gmail.com>
Thanks! |
00check.log
is a recent check log from running under
_SP_EVOLUTION_STATUS_=2
without retiring r-spatial packages (suggested in this package) on the library path. The minimal correction is to check that the package namespaces can be loaded, and if not, do not run those parts of the examples or vignettes. It would be safer in the longer term to replace retiring r-spatial packages with active r-spatial/rspatial packages (see https://r-spatial.org/r/2022/04/12/evolution.html, https://r-spatial.org/r/2022/12/14/evolution2.html).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: