Thanks, just to make sure:
In the policy I find the entry:
Additional_repositories:
The ‘Additional_repositories’ field is a comma-separated list of repository
URLs where the packages named in the other fields may be found. It is currently
used by R CMD check to check that the packages can be
Thanks for the advice. Revision sounds perfectly plausible to me. I will test
via winbuilder and may use it.
Regards, Bernd
==
Dr Bernd Gruber )/_
On 24.06.2023 19:44, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 24 June 2023 at 21:35, Stephen Wade wrote:
| Doesnt seem like the system package is worth it. Should the convention
| simply be to bundle the headers in the package then? What about package
| size - is there some limit to the size of included l
On 25.06.2023 09:00, Bernd.Gruber wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the advice.
Still not 100% sure if that is okay to submit to CRAN.
As mentioned I have new packages that have others in the suggest (and yes the
examples/tests run fine by making the dependent),
But if I have a package that is not ye
В Sun, 25 Jun 2023 06:30:39 +
Bernd.Gruber пишет:
> I read in some stackexchange answers that it is possible to add the
> keyword
>
> Nickname:
>
> to the description file. It works fine when I check the package but
> winbuilder comes back with a note:
>
> Unknown, possibly misspelled, fie
Hi,
Thanks for the advice.
Still not 100% sure if that is okay to submit to CRAN.
As mentioned I have new packages that have others in the suggest (and yes the
examples/tests run fine by making the dependent),
But if I have a package that is not yet on CRAN in the suggest I see that
running w
