On Thu, 2020-09-10 at 13:31 +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > Roel Janssen <r...@gnu.org> writes: > > > > > +(define-public r-bisquerna > > > > + (package > > > > + (name "r-bisquerna") > > > > + (version "1.0.4") > > > > + (source (origin > > > > + (method url-fetch) > > > > + (uri (cran-uri "BisqueRNA" version)) > > > > + (sha256 > > > > + (base32 > > > > + "01g34n87ml7n3pck77497ddgbv3rr5p4153ac8ninpgjijl > > > > m3jw > > > > 2")))) > > > > > > Why is this in (gnu packages bioinformatics) and not in (gnu > > > packages > > > cran)? > > > > It seemed so "bioinformatics"-specific. But you're right, it's a > > CRAN > > package, so that may be a better fit. Shall I move it to CRAN? > > If you have time to do that, yes please. Some time ago I started a > half-hearted migration of R packages from (gnu packages > bioinformatics) > to (gnu packages cran) and (gnu packages bioconductor). It’s not > supremely important, but I think in the long term we’d like to have > CRAN > things in (gnu packages cran) and Bioconductor things in (gnu > packages > bioconductor), because it’s deliciously unsurprising. :)
I fully agree that it would be nice to have all packages originating from CRAN in (gnu packages cram) and all things Bioconductor in (gnu packages bioconductor). I moved r-bisquerna and lowercased its synopsis in 66be746dc0c0f4ba3d748ed8d0983b2f9afdace8. Kind regards, Roel Janssen