On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, David Brahm wrote:
> My "g.data" contributed package fails under R-devel. g.data creates minimal
> packages which consist only of a "DESCRIPTION" file and the "R" and "data"
> subdirectories, but .find.package() now rejects them because the DESCRIPTION
> file lacks a "Version" field. I will fix g.data to add a "Version" field.
>
> My question is, what else is necessary for a minimal package? "Writing R
> Extensions" states:
> "The `Package', `Version', `License', `Description', `Title', `Author',
> and `Maintainer' fields are mandatory..."
> So should I really add all these (superfluous) fields, to avoid future
> rejection?
At least Package, Version and Title are not superfluous: they
are used by library().
> (A comment inside .find.package() refers to tools:::check_package_description,
> but I could not find such a function.
It is tools:::.check_package_description
^
> Is there a plan for a universal package
> validator, and if so, what are its requirements?)
It's called R CMD check, and also we have long required that packages be
INSTALLed. So we require valid metadata in pkg/Meta and a Built: field in
the DESCRIPTION, since 2.0.0 will require a package to have been INSTALLed
under 2.0.0. (That has implications for the indices too.)
> Bigger picture, will g.data be rendered obsolete by lazy loading?
Is any one using it? Lazy data loading in a package seems much simpler to
me, as did direct use of delay() earlier.
--
Brian D. Ripley, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595
______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
