Hi,
The organism and species accessors (getters and setters) are now generic
functions in BiocGenerics (>= 0.13.8).
To my knowledge all the packages in devel (except rsbml) that define
(or use) these accessors were modified to use these new generics.
Please let me know if I forgot some.
Some cl
I just think there are a couple of subtleties here. I certainly don't
begrudge people wanting to type less and find packages easier. But if a
naive user with a default (read: release) Bioc installation goes to
http://bioconductor.org/CoolAwesomePkg and see's that it is "available in
bioconductor" b
There are still problems with completely reproducing old analyses partly
due to our (current) inability to reproduce an exact version (as Martin
says).
But I don't think we should muddle the waters and mix URL schemas with
versioning.
What Wolfgang is asking for is something I think makes total s
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Wolfgang Huber wrote:
> > 5. At the end of the day I find myself casting my lot for landing pages
> with the form
> > http://bioconductor.org/release/BiocGenerics/
> > which leads to a little less typing but not the dynamic resolution that
> started this (version
The builder for submitted packages uses the devtools package and this is a bug
in devtools:
https://github.com/hadley/devtools/issues/717
You can ignore it.
Dan
- Original Message -
> From: "Glyn Bradley"
> To: bioc-devel@r-project.org
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 3:03:36 AM
> Su
> 5. At the end of the day I find myself casting my lot for landing pages with
> the form
> http://bioconductor.org/release/BiocGenerics/
> which leads to a little less typing but not the dynamic resolution that
> started this (version) of the thread.
But we already have dynamic resolution. Eve
#5 is what I was thinking of when I responded. A simple RewriteRule, if anyone
still uses Apache.
"Release" vs "devel" and/or "3.0" vs "3.1" vs "3.2", e.g.
> http://bioconductor.org/release/BiocGenerics/
Pointing analogously to
> http://bioconductor.org/3.0/BiocGenerics/
seems like a good
On 03/24/2015 02:31 AM, Wolfgang Huber wrote:
Before we start a religious war, can we make progress on the pragmatic goal of
making it possible to provide such URLs to people?
There are two concepts
- ‘the package' - a specific version, running in a specific environment,
‘frozen’, etc. (Gabe)
Hi
After uploading our package to the tracker, it built successfully on all
systems with no errors.
But we have the following Rtools related WARNING:
WARNING: Rtools is required to build R packages, but no version of Rtools
compatible with R 3.2.0 was found. (Only the following incompatible vers
Before we start a religious war, can we make progress on the pragmatic goal of
making it possible to provide such URLs to people?
There are two concepts
- ‘the package' - a specific version, running in a specific environment,
‘frozen’, etc. (Gabe)
- ‘the package’ - as a concept and a living arti
10 matches
Mail list logo
