[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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 The Policy Draft you reference is somewhat outdated and in need of a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
| reasonable).

Yes, better safe than sorry.  Probably better to keep the 'package name
space' separated.


Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.

Reply to: