Re: Bug#512433: ITP: r-cran-vcd -- GNU R Visualizing Categorical Data
On 21 January 2009 at 23:34, Andreas Tille wrote:
| On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > The Policy Draft you reference is somewhat outdated and in need of a
| > refresher.
| I've thought this because it is quite old from the tome stamp but
| I failwd to found something more recent.
| > As for the names: On a few of my more recent ITPs for R / CRAN
| > packages, folks suggested to not use the 'short' names. Hence I would
| > suggest
| > r-cran-msm
| > r-cran-sp
| > r-cran-spc
| > r-cran-vcd
| > for binary _and source_ packages and you may as well stick with
| > r-cran-colorspace
| Fine, I will regard this for these packages. WHat would you
| suggest for the recently uploaded package plotrix which is currently
| in new? should I immediately ask ftpmaster to drop this upload
| and rename the source package as well?
Whichever way you see fit.
I myself have not been entirely consistent. Packages that were likely to
clash (having two or three letter names) I upload as r-cran-$foo, but my own
Rcpp went as source rcpp and binary r-cran-rcpp.
| > as colorspace is so generic.
| I completely agree. I just added the explicite hint to my
| ITPs (if I did not forgot it) to ask for comments on the
| naming scheme because I was not really convinced that it is
| the best idea these days (at the time of writing it was probably
Yes, better safe than sorry. Probably better to keep the 'package name
Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.