Hi, first of all thanks Uwe for your time. About the package writing a file in the home directory, I have a doubt: the package's aim is to be able to setup configuration files without too much effort. Usually the home is a good place to put such file (for example rstudio creates .rstudio-desktop in your home...). Is this because the file is created from a vignette, or is it going to be an issue? For the vignette, what if I change the location of the file to a temporary directory? Would that help pass the check?
As it was pointed to me, running devtools::check() is not enough, and in fact after building the package and running R CMD build on the .tar.zip archive I still get errors (I fixed the title and the description, but apparently wasn't enough). Below is the log message I get, I think I have somehow to change the documentation because latex can't compile it (although I have no idea why it can't) and I don't properly understand the complain about the imports. I don't include them in the NAMESPACE because I call my functions using the form package::function (e.g. R6::R6Class), which is what I thought is considered as good practice. Could you give me some advice on how to fix this note? Thanks a lot for the help, here is the log I of the errors: cat simpleroptions.Rcheck/00check.log * using log directory ‘/home/luca/Documents/r-projects/simpleroptions.Rcheck’ * using R version 3.4.3 (2017-11-30) * using platform: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (64-bit) * using session charset: UTF-8 * checking for file ‘simpleroptions/DESCRIPTION’ ... OK * this is package ‘simpleroptions’ version ‘0.2.0’ * package encoding: UTF-8 * checking package namespace information ... OK * checking package dependencies ... OK * checking if this is a source package ... OK * checking if there is a namespace ... OK * checking for executable files ... OK * checking for hidden files and directories ... OK * checking for portable file names ... OK * checking for sufficient/correct file permissions ... OK * checking whether package ‘simpleroptions’ can be installed ... OK * checking installed package size ... OK * checking package directory ... OK * checking ‘build’ directory ... OK * checking DESCRIPTION meta-information ... OK * checking top-level files ... OK * checking for left-over files ... OK * checking index information ... OK * checking package subdirectories ... OK * checking R files for non-ASCII characters ... OK * checking R files for syntax errors ... OK * checking whether the package can be loaded ... OK * checking whether the package can be loaded with stated dependencies ... OK * checking whether the package can be unloaded cleanly ... OK * checking whether the namespace can be loaded with stated dependencies ... OK * checking whether the namespace can be unloaded cleanly ... OK * checking loading without being on the library search path ... OK * checking dependencies in R code ... NOTE Namespaces in Imports field not imported from: ‘R6’ ‘jsonlite’ ‘knitr’ ‘readr’ All declared Imports should be used. * checking S3 generic/method consistency ... OK * checking replacement functions ... OK * checking foreign function calls ... OK * checking R code for possible problems ... OK * checking Rd files ... OK * checking Rd metadata ... OK * checking Rd cross-references ... OK * checking for missing documentation entries ... OK * checking for code/documentation mismatches ... OK * checking Rd \usage sections ... OK * checking Rd contents ... OK * checking for unstated dependencies in examples ... OK * checking installed files from ‘inst/doc’ ... OK * checking files in ‘vignettes’ ... OK * checking examples ... OK * checking for unstated dependencies in vignettes ... OK * checking package vignettes in ‘inst/doc’ ... OK * checking running R code from vignettes ... NONE * checking re-building of vignette outputs ... OK * checking PDF version of manual ... WARNING LaTeX errors when creating PDF version. This typically indicates Rd problems. * checking PDF version of manual without hyperrefs or index ... OK * DONE Status: 1 WARNING, 1 NOTE On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Uwe Ligges <lig...@statistik.tu-dortmund.de> wrote: > > > On 09.01.2018 09:22, Luca Cerone wrote: > >> Dear all, >> I have submitted my first R package to CRAN and I have received the email >> below back. >> >> If I understood the log message correctly, to fix the issues is fairly >> simple: >> - correct the Title using the Title Case suggestion >> - change a bit the description so that "simpleroptions" is not the first >> word in the DESCRIPTION. >> >> Also the mispelled word is the name of my package so I guess that is OK, >> isn't it > >> Before re-submitting and wasting CRAN reviewers time I would like to know >> that with the changes above the package would be good for acceptance. >> > > We see: > > File 'LICENSE': > MIT License > > Copyright (c) 2017 Luca Cerone > > Permission .. > > > Please only submit the CRAN template for the MIT licernse. > > Possibly mis-spelled words in DESCRIPTION: > simpleroptions (3:14) > > Software names should be single quoted in the Description field, but I > doubt you need it as people know your package's namne already. > > > The Title field should be in title case, current version then in title > case: > 'Easily manage options files for your packages and scripts' > 'Easily Manage Options Files for your Packages and Scripts' > > The Description field should not start with the package name, > 'This package' or similar. > > Hence less redundancy. > > > * checking DESCRIPTION meta-information ... WARNING > Dependence on R version '3.4.2' not with patchlevel 0 > > > Use patchlevel 0 if applicable. > > > > You also left a file in the user'S home dir: > .simpleroptions_vignette > > It is not permitted to write there without the user explicitly specifying > it. > > Best, > Uwe Ligges > > Also I do have a question, I have tried several times to check whether my >> package was ready for CRAN using the devtools::check() function and I >> got to the point were I have no Warning no Notes. Is it normal that the >> checks can be different? Or maybe it is a symptom that I am doing >> something >> wrong with the build() and check() steps? >> >> Thank you all for your help with this! >> >> Cheers, >> Luca >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: <uwe.lig...@r-project.org> >> Date: Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:29 PM >> Subject: [CRAN-pretest-archived] CRAN submission simpleroptions 0.2.0 >> To: luca.cer...@gmail.com >> Cc: cran-submissi...@r-project.org >> >> >> Dear maintainer, >> >> package simpleroptions_0.2.0.tar.gz does not pass the incoming checks >> automatically, please see the pre-test at: >> <https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/ >> 180108_232242_simpleroptions_020/00check.log> >> Status: 1 WARNING, 1 NOTE >> >> >> Please fix all problems and resubmit a fixed version via the webform. >> If you are not sure how to fix the problems shown, please ask for help on >> the R-package-devel mailing list: >> <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel> >> If you are fairly certain the rejection is a false positive, please >> reply-all to this message and explain. >> >> More details are given in the directory: >> <https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/ >> 180108_232242_simpleroptions_020> >> The files will be removed after roughly 7 days. >> >> >> Best regards, >> CRAN teams' auto-check service >> >> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >> >> ______________________________________________ >> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel >> >> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
