Re: [Rd] Phrase "package writer" in R-exts

2011-04-01 Thread Davor Cubranic
On 2011-04-01, at 12:17 PM, Ted Byers wrote: > Note, while I see the author's > responsibility to write perfectly (or at least try), the reader also has a > responsibility to work at determining what the author meant by what he or > she wrote. Most people don't read reference manuals to engage wi

Re: [Rd] logos

2011-04-01 Thread Simon Urbanek
On Apr 1, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Claudia Beleites wrote: > Dear all, > > I'd like to link one of the logos in our Google Summer of Code Profile. If I > remember correctly, behind the logo link at http://developer.r-project.org/ > (i.e. http://developer.r-project.org/Logo) also small versions can be

[Rd] logos

2011-04-01 Thread Claudia Beleites
Dear all, I'd like to link one of the logos in our Google Summer of Code Profile. If I remember correctly, behind the logo link at http://developer.r-project.org/ (i.e. http://developer.r-project.org/Logo) also small versions can be found. However, I'm not allowed to access that directory. I

Re: [Rd] Phrase "package writer" in R-exts

2011-04-01 Thread Kevin Wright
Considering that the package.skeleton() function really is a "package writer" of sorts, I agree that "package author" is clearer. Kevin On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Davor Cubranic wrote: > In a conversation with a programmer new to writing R packages, he mentioned > that he was very confuse

Re: [Rd] "R CMD check" accepts but "R CMD INSTALL" rejects a tar ball.

2011-04-01 Thread Hin-Tak Leung
--- On Fri, 1/4/11, Simon Urbanek wrote: > >> So the difference is whether you use external or > internal > >> tar. 'g' is the global pax header extension so the > format > >> you created is really pax and not tar (pax defines > two new > >> types 'x' and 'g'). > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Simon > > >

Re: [Rd] Adding a "description" meta-tag to the R homepage

2011-04-01 Thread Hadley Wickham
> Interesting. What's odd is that although that phrasing is used in multiple > places on the net, it is not in the actual www.r-project.org/index.html, nor > in any other "official" places that I can spot. > > However, what gets displayed for SAS and Stata is not what is in their > description t

Re: [Rd] Adding a "description" meta-tag to the R homepage

2011-04-01 Thread Roebuck,Paul L
On 4/1/11 1:38 PM, "peter dalgaard" wrote: > On Apr 1, 2011, at 08:49 , Tal Galili wrote: > >> I believe that the R homepage will benefit from including the "description" >> meta tag in it's homepage. >> The reason is that google uses that tag to decide what to show when the R >> homepage shows

Re: [Rd] Phrase "package writer" in R-exts

2011-04-01 Thread Ted Byers
> From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-bounces@r- > project.org] On Behalf Of Davor Cubranic > Sent: April-01-11 2:23 PM > > In a conversation with a programmer new to writing R packages, he > mentioned that he was very confused by phrase "package writer" used in > the document, and

Re: [Rd] Adding a "description" meta-tag to the R homepage

2011-04-01 Thread peter dalgaard
On Apr 1, 2011, at 08:49 , Tal Galili wrote: > Hello all, > I hope I'm writing to the correct place. > > I believe that the R homepage will benefit from including the "description" > meta tag in it's homepage. > The reason is that google uses that tag to decide what to show when the R > homepage

[Rd] Phrase "package writer" in R-exts

2011-04-01 Thread Davor Cubranic
In a conversation with a programmer new to writing R packages, he mentioned that he was very confused by phrase "package writer" used in the document, and said that he "[was] literally imagining some sort of function that writes something related to packages". I can see his point: not only is i

Re: [Rd] "R CMD check" accepts but "R CMD INSTALL" rejects a tar ball.

2011-04-01 Thread Simon Urbanek
On Apr 1, 2011, at 12:16 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: > --- On Fri, 1/4/11, Simon Urbanek wrote: > >> ?untar: >> >> You may see warnings from the >> internal implementation such as >> >> unsupported entry type 'x' >> >> This often indicates an invalid >> archive: entry types

Re: [Rd] "R CMD check" accepts but "R CMD INSTALL" rejects a tar ball.

2011-04-01 Thread Hin-Tak Leung
--- On Fri, 1/4/11, Simon Urbanek wrote: > ?untar: > >      You may see warnings from the > internal implementation such as >       >      unsupported entry type 'x' > >      This often indicates an invalid > archive: entry types ‘"A-Z"’ are >      allowed as extensions, but other > types are r

Re: [Rd] "R CMD check" accepts but "R CMD INSTALL" rejects a tar ball.

2011-04-01 Thread Simon Urbanek
?untar: You may see warnings from the internal implementation such as unsupported entry type 'x' This often indicates an invalid archive: entry types ‘"A-Z"’ are allowed as extensions, but other types are reserved (this example is from Mac OS 10.6.3). The only thin

[Rd] Fw: Re: core Matrix package segfaulted on R CMD check --use-gct

2011-04-01 Thread Hin-Tak Leung
repost from the subscribed address... --- On Fri, 1/4/11, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: > --- On Wed, 30/3/11, Douglas Bates > > wrote: > > > I isolated the problem and tested then committed a > fix. I > > am going to > > ask Martin to upload the new release as I have gotten > out > > of sync with > >

[Rd] "R CMD check" accepts but "R CMD INSTALL" rejects a tar ball.

2011-04-01 Thread Hin-Tak Leung
I have somehow managed to made a source tar ball which "R CMD check" accepts but "R CMD INSTALL" rejects with: -- Warning in untar2(tarfile, files, list, exdir) : checksum error for entry 'pax_global_header' Error in untar2(tarfile, files, list, exdir) : unsupported entry type ‘