Any opinions about data files usually shipped with R packages (Was: r-cran-aer_1.2-5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED)
Hi ftpmasters,
some years ago Jörg posted a way we should deal with data files in R
packages[1]. I recently packaged r-cran-aer that contains 108 such data
files in a data/* dir which each has its documentation inside dir man.
For 100 of the data files names of data file and documentation are
matching perfectly if .rda extension is replaced by .Rd. For the
remaining 8 data files the according name of the documentation is easily
to guess.
So my way to follow[1] was
Files: data/*.rda
Documented: man/*.Rd
Each binary data file has an accompanying documentation file
specifying the source of the data file in man/
I also expressed the hope that this will be accepted in expecting a
quick response since due to some failed communication with ftpmaster the
lack of this package creates an RC bug in r-cran-zelig (#852925)
In some face to face meeting Thorsten told me that he thinks ftpmaster
needs to decide this (Thorsten is "only" Assistant). My private mails
to ftpmaster remained unanswered and yesterday I received:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 06:00:09PM +0000, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
>
> I am going to reject this package now ..
I admit I'm not very happy about the lack of according communication for
2 monthes while a RC bug is open. A valid response to my mail[2] would
IMHO be:
Sorry, false hope. Please specify all files.
This had enabled me to raise this question here two monthes ago. So
what's your opinion in cases like this:
[ ] Every single data/*.rda files needs to be documented explicitly
[ ] The hint where to find the documentation is sufficient
[ ] If developer does not spent (burn?) time for documentation data
should be rather removed (at the expense of non-working demo,
tutorial, tests)
[ ] Other things?
As always I'd like to explicitly thank ftpmaster who currently cleaned
up the whole new queue. However, in some cases I would be happy to
receive some answer to my mails that would help me to draw a decision
instead of staying idle since your intention is not clear to me.
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/09/msg00332.html
[2] https://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-science-maintainers/2017-February/048549.html
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: