Re: [Rd] Advice sought about Rd versions

2009-08-04 Thread Duncan Murdoch

On 28/07/2009 1:21 PM, Michael Dewey wrote:
 From R 2.9.0 we have the concept of versions for Rd files. The 
manual is clear about the differences but I am unsure as to what I 
should do about my existing packages. Is it recommended that I set 
the version to 1.1 and then fix the errors R CMD check helpfully 
points out and then subsequently do the same for later versions (the 
manual mentions version 2 is coming)? What benefit will I gain?


This is currently somewhat in flux.  Ask again in a couple of weeks.

(My preference is that \Rdversion specifies a minimum version needed, so 
it's mostly redundant:  the DESCRIPTION file could be used to say the 
version of R needed, and Rd versions are going to change more slowly 
than R versions.  But as I said, this is in flux.)


Duncan Murdoch

__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel


[Rd] Advice sought about Rd versions

2009-07-28 Thread Michael Dewey
From R 2.9.0 we have the concept of versions for Rd files. The 
manual is clear about the differences but I am unsure as to what I 
should do about my existing packages. Is it recommended that I set 
the version to 1.1 and then fix the errors R CMD check helpfully 
points out and then subsequently do the same for later versions (the 
manual mentions version 2 is coming)? What benefit will I gain?



Michael Dewey
http://www.aghmed.fsnet.co.uk

__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel