On Sat, Oct 08, 2016 at 12:12:12PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 7 October 2016 at 22:24, Dylan wrote: > | 2016-10-07 16:25 GMT+02:00 Gordon Ball <gordon@chronitis.net>: > | > On 07/10/16 15:33, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > | >> On 7 October 2016 at 15:09, Andreas Tille wrote: > | >> | I'm fine with these changes. If you want to let this propagate to all > | >> | R+BioConductor packages probably a lintian warning makes sense. May be > | >> > | >> Really? We don't have an officially sanctioned policy that _mandates_ this. > [...] > | There is the same thing on the Bioconductor page: "Canonical url for > | use in publications, etc., will always redirect to current release > | version (or devel if package is not in release yet)." > > I wasn't clear here. I obviously have no issue with checks for the canonical > URL which CRAN now mandates and checks for in uploads to CRAN; I fixed many > of my (R upstream) packages already. So sure, that check is helpful. > > I was gently objecting to making dh-r a mandate. It's a new tool, so let's > give people a chance to try and use / improve it. Or not to if they prefer. > It's better if this evolves naturally than per fiat. > > We may well all use it. Time will tell. I couldn't agree more. I'm a cdbs fan, and some of my packages I maintain with neither cdbs nor dh. So I was _very_ happy to find out cdbs was the tool used by many r-cran packages, when I started packaging r-cran stuff. Don't get me wrong: I am happy we now can use dh to build r-cran packages: more choice is always welcome. So: thanks a lot Gordon and Dylan for your work. I however won't immediately start converting my r-cran packages from cdbs to dh-r. Bye, Joost -- Debian is essentially an eclectic anarchy. We do not practise the tyranny of the masses around here. --Andrew Suffield http://mdcc.cx/ ※ Tilburg, Низоземска ★ http://ad1810.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature