hi, Am Montag, 8. August 2011, 17:41:26 schrieb meik michalke: > you can easily create an "R package" that has no real package payload (like > i said, a valid DESCRIPTION file is roughly it). so we'd just have to > alter the specification of external plugins a little, so that each > external RKWard plugin can also be seen as a valid R package.
to clear this bit up, here's what i'd propose as the standard plugin archive
hierarchy. first, this is the current state, as described in the
documentation:
<old>
plugin_name/
plugins/
plugin_name.xml
plugin_name.js
plugin_name.rkh
...
tests/
sometestsuitename/
RKTestStandards.sometest.rkcommands.R
RKTestStandards.sometest.rkout
...
testsuite.R
plugin_name.pluginmap
ChangeLog
README
AUTHORS
LICENSE
...
</old>
it's only minor changes to turn this into an R package that would install
without errors:
<new>
plugin_name/
inst/
rkward/
plugins/
plugin_name.xml
plugin_name.js
plugin_name.rkh
...
tests/
sometestsuitename/
RKTestStandards.sometest.rkcommands.R
RKTestStandards.sometest.rkout
...
testsuite.R
plugin_name.pluginmap
ChangeLog
AUTHORS
DESCRIPTION.RKWard
LICENSE
README
...
DESCRIPTION
</new>
in summary, there's only two differences:
- a valid DESCRIPTION needs to be added (which is very easy, using
write.dcf(), which i just discovered for myself... see below)
- all the previous contets move unchanged as they are from the root
directory to "inst/rkward/"
(- regarding the added "DESCRIPTION.RKWard", see below, just an idea)
when installed, everything in "inst" is copied to the root of the installation
directory, i.e. a package "myFoo" containing "myFoo/inst/rkward/...",
installed with install.package("myFoo"), will end up like
"$LibPath/myFoo/rkward/...".
and looking at read.dcf(), would you think it might be easier to move the
<about></about> section from the .pluginmap to a DESRIPTION-like format? in
contrast to the XML coded info, it would at least be human readable, directly
accessible from R, and much easier to produce (e.g. by a script), too:
plugin.descr <- data.frame(
Plugin="myFoo", # instead of "Package"
Title="Evaluate bar.",
Version="0.1-2",
Date=format(Sys.time(), "%Y-%m-%d"),
Author="John Doe",
Maintainer="Jane Doe <[email protected]>",
Depends="R (>= 2.10), RKWard (>= 0.5.3)",
Category="Foo Bar", # optional
License="GPL (>= 3)",
URL="http://myFoo.example.com";)
write.dcf(plugin.descr, file="DESCRIPTION.RKWard")
read.dcf("DESCRIPTION.RKWard")
to access information from an installed package:
read.dcf(system.file(file.path("rkward", "DESCRIPTION.RKWard"),
package="myFoo"))
regarding support for several authors: duplicate entries are valid, so you
could append multiple "Author" lines. as long as nothing if that section is
evaluated as of now anyway, it wouldn't break anything, would it? are there
any reasons to keep it in XML, though?
viele grüße :: m.eik
--
dipl. psych. meik michalke
abt. f"ur diagnostik und differentielle psychologie
institut f"ur experimentelle psychologie
heinrich-heine-universit"at d"usseldorf
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ uberSVN's rich system and user administration capabilities and model configuration take the hassle out of deploying and managing Subversion and the tools developers use with it. Learn more about uberSVN and get a free download at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/wandisco-dev2dev
_______________________________________________ RKWard-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rkward-devel
