On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 09:31 -0400, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > On 11/06/2015 9:15 AM, Kevin Coombes wrote: > > Hi, > > > > When I run "R CMD check --as-cran" on my packages in R 3.2.0, I now get > > a new series of NOTE's telling me that (1) the Description field in the > > DESCRIPTION should file should not start with "This package" or with the > > package name, and (2) the Title field in the DESCRIPTION file should be > > in title case. > > > > Question: Is there any way to turn these notes off and still get the > > rest of cran-style checking? > > > > Grumpy Observation: In reaction to (1), I went to CRAN and randomly > > clicked on a dozen packages to see how many of them follow this rule. > > Half of them violate it explicitly, mostly just starting with "This > > package...". Most of the rest get around it by starting with a sentence > > fragment that omits the subject (which is _implicitly_ "this package"). > > Only one of them started with a complete sentence that gave the > > background of the problem the package was intended to solve. > > > > I strongly believe that it's better to write complete sentences than > > sentence fragments in the Description field. And since the empirical > > evidence suggest that almost everyone at least implicitly starts their > > description with "This package", I'm not sure why the NOTE ever got > > added in the first place.... > > Presumably those packages were last updated before the tests were added.
To expand on Duncan's point, my understanding is that a NOTE does not, by itself, trigger a request for a package update. However, when you do send an update to CRAN it should be free of NOTEs, or the ones that do remain should be explained. R checks can be customized by setting certain environment variables of the form _R_CHECK_*_. See R Internals section 8, which lists them (including a set that will approximate the CRAN tests) and Writing R Extensions section 1.3 which tells you how to set them. But of course --as-cran is exactly what you need if you intend to submit a package to CRAN. Martyn > I don't know the answer to your question other than the generic "Of > course there is, R is open source", but I don't really see the point of > deeper research: you can certainly ignore the NOTEs more easily than > suppressing them, so why not do that? > > Duncan Murdoch > > ______________________________________________ > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This message and its attachments are strictly confidenti...{{dropped:8}} ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
