On 8 May 2016 at 16:18, Uwe Ligges wrote:
| On 08.05.2016 16:13, carlos cinelli wrote:
| > How should I proceed in this case?
|
| Submit to CRAN.
The deeper question is if 'we all' can have a conversation about extending
the directory layout / format to add things to the packaging infrastructure.
What comes to mind is e.g.
- a spell-checker white list (per Carlos' initial email)
- more generally, 'white list' of warnings R CMD check can be quiet about [1]
- more hooks, ie I would like to call roxygen2::roxygenize() as well as
Rcpp::compileAttributes() when building
- [ This place intentionally left blank. Let me hear other proposals. ]
We have a year to mess things up for R 3.4.0, so anybody else intereted in
working on this?
Dirk
[1] There is no point in telling me that Rcpp creates a shared library of
over 1 mb. It has been doing so for years. C++ libraries have a footprint.
--
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
