On 20 August 2023 at 09:22, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
| That seems like a bug that should be reported to the Roxygen authors.
Seb did so in June:
https://github.com/r-lib/roxygen2/issues/1491
There has not been a response (but given the CRAN email to many maintainers
it has now been referenced
"_PACKAGE"
Best,
Thomas
On 8/20/23 12:00, r-package-devel-requ...@r-project.org wrote:
--
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2023 12:54:40 +0000
From: Daniel Kelley
To: R package devel
Subject: [R-pkg-devel] poss
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2023 12:54:40 +0000
From: Daniel Kelley
To: R package devel
Subject: [R-pkg-devel] possible solution to
package-documentation-alias problem
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
#
When you get a note from CRAN, remember that it ignores Roxygen comments
completely. It's just looking at the files that Roxygen produces. So
you should look at the .Rd files when you get a complaint about them.
Your previous code would have produced a file named plan.Rd, and that
file didn'
Thanks Dan. Also see:
https://r-pkgs.org/man.html#sec-man-package-doc
My understanding is that literally thousands of packages are broken in the same
way.
-Roy
> On Aug 19, 2023, at 5:54 AM, Daniel Kelley wrote:
>
> # Preamble
>
> This email is to tell other developers what I did to addres
# Preamble
This email is to tell other developers what I did to address an issue with
documenting a package. I'm not sure that I am correct in my approach --
comments would definitely be appreciated -- but at least this email is fairly
concrete about the changes I made. To be honest, I don't know
