On 05/10/2018 01:37 AM, Pariksheet Nanda wrote:
Hi Henrik, On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 1:21 AM, Henrik Bengtsson < henrik.bengts...@gmail.com> wrote:May I suggest the package name: * Bioconductor The potential downside would be possible confusions between the version of this package versus the actual Bioconductor repository. Could the Bioconductor *package* have a version x.y.z that reflects the*repository*x.y version?This is a nice suggestion that also crossed my mind, but users new to both R and Bioconductor might think "but I have 'Bioconductor' installed, why can't I run this script?", and it might complicate web namespace / presence by entrapping searches for the Bioconductor system to the single package.
Yes we thought of this name and rejected it for the reasons Pariksheet mentions -- the opportunity for very significant confusion between the package and the project.
Actually we use a light-weight BiocVersion package in the way suggested at the end of Henrik's comment -- the version of BiocVersion corresponds to the version of Bioconductor the repository. It is also used to 'remember' what version of Bioconductor the user has installed.
Martin
/HenrikPariksheet [[alternative HTML version deleted]] _______________________________________________ Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
This email message may contain legally privileged and/or...{{dropped:2}}
_______________________________________________
Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
