> On 06 May 2015, at 10:53, Christophe Demarey <christophe.dema...@inria.fr>
> wrote:
>
>
> Le 5 mai 2015 à 17:14, Kasper Osterbye a écrit :
>
>> Marcus Denker-4 wrote
>>> Right now we do not have yet Package comments.
>>>
>>> But we should!
>>>
>>> MBInfo seems to be a private class of Versionner…
>>>
>>> For package comments we first need to evaluate the design space…
>>> e.g. where to store it in the image, how to store it in Monticello…
>>
>> OK - Makes sense.
>>
>> From my perspective, the key to getting this of the ground is to make sure
>> such comments can be written and read in Nautilus. The package objects used
>> in Nautilus are from "RPackage".
>> Thus, the problem, in my view reduces to:
>> a) How to make room in RPackage for a comment field (add one more IV)
>> b) How to integrate the storage of this field in connection with Monticello
>> as Marcus writes.
>
> I don't think is the good way to do that.
> We are working on adding meta-data to packages. These meta-data includes a
> package description (or comment) but also a lot of other data.
> You will not be able to store everything in rpackage inst. var. And of
> course, there is also the problem that Monticello is not able to store
> meta-data (e.g. STON files).
> For now, the best option is to use a PackageManifest.
>
> If you want to allow package comments in Nautilus, I would display the
> content of the description method of the package manifest if available.
>
Yes… this could be the easiest for now.
Then as a second step, we add support to store resources in Monticello.
Marcus
