Thank you. Could you provide the contents of DESCRIPTION too? That might provide the richest clue. If you have a link to an online copy of the package that could be helpful too.
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 12:01 Eggleston, Barry <beggles...@rti.org> wrote: > I am working through my first package submission. When I checked my > package using devtools::build_win(), I got no errors and two notes. One > note is simply the expected note that my package is a new submission. My > second note involves DESCRIPTION meta-information, but nothing is printed > so I don't know what to focus on. I have copied the important parts of my > 00check.log from CRAN below for context. What areas of my DESCRIPTION file > might create such an empty note? Thanks in advance for any help you might > give me. > > * checking CRAN incoming feasibility ... NOTE > Maintainer: 'Barry Eggleston <beggles...@rti.org<mailto:beggles...@rti.org > >>' > > New submission > * checking package namespace information ... OK > * checking package dependencies ... OK > * checking if this is a source package ... OK > * checking if there is a namespace ... OK > * checking for hidden files and directories ... OK > * checking for portable file names ... OK > * checking whether package 'BayesCTDesign' can be installed ... OK > * checking installed package size ... OK > * checking package directory ... OK > * checking DESCRIPTION meta-information ... NOTE > > * checking top-level files ... OK > * checking for left-over files ... OK > * checking index information ... OK > * checking package subdirectories ... OK > * checking R files for non-ASCII characters ... OK > * checking R files for syntax errors ... OK > * loading checks for arch 'i386' > ** checking whether the package can be loaded ... OK > ** checking whether the package can be loaded with stated dependencies ... > OK > ** checking whether the package can be unloaded cleanly ... OK > ** checking whether the namespace can be loaded with stated dependencies > ... OK > ** checking whether the namespace can be unloaded cleanly ... OK > ** checking loading without being on the library search path ... OK > ** checking use of S3 registration ... OK > * loading checks for arch 'x64' > ** checking whether the package can be loaded ... OK > ** checking whether the package can be loaded with stated dependencies ... > OK > ** checking whether the package can be unloaded cleanly ... OK > ** checking whether the namespace can be loaded with stated dependencies > ... OK > ** checking whether the namespace can be unloaded cleanly ... OK > ** checking loading without being on the library search path ... OK > ** checking use of S3 registration ... OK > * checking dependencies in R code ... OK > * checking S3 generic/method consistency ... OK > * checking replacement functions ... OK > * checking foreign function calls ... OK > * checking R code for possible problems ... [41s] OK > * checking Rd files ... OK > * checking Rd metadata ... OK > * checking Rd line widths ... OK > * checking Rd cross-references ... OK > * checking for missing documentation entries ... OK > * checking for code/documentation mismatches ... OK > * checking Rd \usage sections ... OK > * checking Rd contents ... OK > * checking for unstated dependencies in examples ... OK > * checking examples ... > ** running examples for arch 'i386' ... [19s] OK > ** running examples for arch 'x64' ... [22s] OK > * checking PDF version of manual ... OK > * DONE > Status: 2 NOTEs > > Barry > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
