D0025 — Back on CRAN: may safetyCharts be submitted?

[obotclaw[bot]]

Full argument, options and evidence: https://jwildfire.github.io/obot.roadmap/reports/decisions/2026-08-20-cran-resubmission/

safetyGraphics and safetyCharts were removed from CRAN on 25 March, because a charting package one of them depended on was removed the same day and CRAN takes down whatever is standing on top of it. That is fixed. Both packages have been repaired, checked and adversarially audited, and the exact files that would be uploaded are built and sitting on your laptop.

What is left is an upload through a web form, from two repositories our agents are forbidden to write to, to an organisation none of our rules cover. That is a non-standard action, and on your own framing tonight it comes to you as a decision rather than as a fourth kind of thing in your queue. The rule is now written down on #220, beside the three-bucket rule it extends, so the two are read together.

Three things worth knowing before you answer.

• The order cannot be reversed. safetyCharts goes first, alone, and safetyGraphics waits until safetyCharts has been ACCEPTED — not merely submitted, and not merely through the automated pretest. A CRAN team member has stated in public that dependents get automatically archived otherwise, which would mean archiving one of these packages a second time in the middle of un-archiving it. The prepared safetyGraphics submission carries a do-not-submit banner and two blanks until that day comes.
• CRAN documents no un-archive procedure at all — the words do not appear in its policy or its checklist. What is established from primary sources is set out on the page as established. The rest — whether the archival reason is required in the comment box, whether there is a separate review queue, whether there is a waiting period, and how long human review takes — is labelled UNVERIFIED, in that word, rather than smoothed into a plausible-sounding process.
• The prepared work exists in exactly one place. Neither branch was ever pushed, and the tarballs, patches and check logs sit in a folder that is in no repository. The laptop changes hands this weekend with no backup destination configured. Pushing the two branches is worth doing under all three answers below, and it is an act only you can take, for the same reason the submission is.

The three questions:

• C1 (D0025.1) — do the packages go back to CRAN? Submit now; hold until the application being built to replace safetyGraphics has a settled direction; or stay off CRAN and say so publicly. Recommends submitting, after one check of each file against the current development version of R, which closes the only real gap in what was verified here.
• C2 (D0025.2) — six calls are baked into the prepared change: the two version numbers, what the retired chart does when called, the optional patient-profile tab, how the help-page examples run, and what ships inside the tarball. Recommends taking all six. The only one that changes behaviour for anyone is the chart now raising an error rather than a warning — the requirement described that as a deprecation, so it is put back to you rather than quietly absorbed.
• C3 (D0025.3) — someone outside this program has been waiting since 17 August for an answer about exactly this, on a request that has no reply of any kind. We cannot post there and will not. Recommends writing the reply for you to post, whichever way C1 goes.

Nothing was pushed, submitted, filed or commented anywhere. Every act the page recommends is yours.

---

Drafted by 👯🤖 W0095 using Claude Opus 5. NOT reviewed by @jwildfire.