Hi all, I am developing a package called 'IFC'. https://github.com/gitdemont/IFC/ <https://github.com/gitdemont/IFC/tree/v0.0.7>
Last submission (v0.0.7) was almost the final one to get it CRAN https://github.com/gitdemont/IFC/tree/v0.0.7 It was manually checked and it should be accepted if I removed a dontrun (that I unfortunately forgot). For the next submission ( I hope it will be the good one ), in addition to fixing the dontrun, I would like to include a small modification that was not asked. I would like to avoid another round of submission/review by introducing an issue that was not here. In DESCRIPTION of 'IFC', I am inviting users to refer to files for copyrights and authorship. "See file inst/COPYRIGHTS and file inst/AUTHORS for a list of copyright holders and authors" However, I am not sure whether I should say 'inst/COPYRIGHTS' and 'inst/AUTHORS' because these files are in the 'inst/' directory of the built tar.gz, or if I should only refer to 'COPYRIGHTS' and 'AUTHORS' (without inst/) because once installed these files will be at the root of IFC library directory. The same question olds for "Copyright: file inst/COPYRIGHTS". In CRAN policies, one can read: "Where copyrights are held by an entity other than the package authors, this should preferably be indicated via ‘cph’ roles in the ‘Authors@R’ field, or using a ‘Copyright’ field (if necessary referring to an inst/COPYRIGHTS file)." In 'RcppMsgPack' for instance we have: - in the description: "See the files 'COPYRIGHTS' and 'AUTHORS' for a full list of copyright holders and contributors to 'msgpack-c'." - in the copyrights: "inst/COPYRIGHTS". Best, Yohann [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
