I don't know if [1] implies vignette persistence after archiving, but it might. I think it just has to fall back to a warning with an archive link to qualify. (Quite a slick trick if so because there can potentially be a parade of different package vignettes over time.)
[1] https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-package-devel/2016q3/001100.html On September 1, 2019 8:49:52 AM PDT, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> wrote: >On 01/09/2019 11:33 a.m., Spencer Graves wrote: >> What's the difference between >> >> >> https://cran.r-project.org/package=bssm/vignettes/bssm.pdf >> >> >> and >> >> >> https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/bssm/vignettes/bssm.pdf >> >> >> When I tried the former, it automatically changed to the >latter. >> Is the former considered to be more stable? > >CRAN puts this on every package page: > >"Please use the canonical form https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=xxxx >to link to this page." > >I think one of the checks will complain if it notices you give the link > >in a different form. I forget which URLs it checks. > >Duncan Murdoch -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
