Hi Andreas, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, [email protected] wrote: > >> Author: tille >> Date: 2009-01-17 09:15:41 +0000 (Sat, 17 Jan 2009) >> New Revision: 3007 > > As you might have noticed I'm working on some R packages to > finally get r-survaillance packaged. While I'm a complete R > newbee (and this status will not change any time soon) I > noticed that building R packages according to the given cdbs > template is brain dead easy and I never finished the basic > stuff for 4 packages in less than one our. On the other
the pkg-bioc project has managed to build what is buildable automatically, but we never got around towards offering it as a service. Dirk maintains the CDBS for the R packaging and I agree - he made it very easy, indeed. > hand I'm not really sure whether all these dependencies of > r-survaillance really belong into our SVN. Probably not :) > I just followed > Steffens scheme in the R subdirectory but I wonder whether > there are more reasonable places than to "hide" for instance > GIS stuff under the topic medicine. > I would like to clarify this before issuing the according > ITPs. Any better suggestions? No, not really. My answer back then was to have pkg-escience as a separate alioth project. But, it is less fun, I think. And not too much is gained. I could imagine that having a subfolder or r-surveillance could make sense in which you keep those extra dependencies, but this very much depends on the package. If they are just other regular R packages, then I would not (and have not) distinguish(ed) about primary and secondary packages at all. Best, Steffen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
