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. 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.Ligges at r-project.org> Date: Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:29 PM Subject: [CRAN-pretest-archived] CRAN submission simpleroptions 0.2.0 To: luca.cerone at gmail.com Cc: CRAN-submissions at 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
[R-pkg-devel] Fwd: [CRAN-pretest-archived] CRAN submission simpleroptions 0.2.0
4 messages · Daniel Nüst, Uwe Ligges, Luca Cerone
Hi Luca,
On 09/01/18 09:22, Luca Cerone wrote:
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.
Yes.
Also the mispelled word is the name of my package so I guess that is OK, isn't it?
The "misspelled" word should not be a problem.
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.
Please note also that you have a warning: * checking DESCRIPTION meta-information ... WARNING Dependence on R version '3.4.2' not with patchlevel 0 https://github.com/lucacerone/simpleroptions/blob/master/DESCRIPTION should have Depends: R (>= 3.4.0) and not "3.4.2". In case you want to prepare even better for CRAN (across architectures), take a look at the rhub package: https://cran.r-project.org/package=rhub Hope this helps, Daniel
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.Ligges at r-project.org> Date: Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:29 PM Subject: [CRAN-pretest-archived] CRAN submission simpleroptions 0.2.0 To: luca.cerone at gmail.com Cc: CRAN-submissions at 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 at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Daniel N?st Institute for Geoinformatics (ifgi), University of M?nster Heisenbergstra?e 2, 48149 M?nster, Germany; +49 251 83 31962 http://ifgi.uni-muenster.de/~d_nues01 http://o2r.info
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.Ligges at r-project.org> Date: Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:29 PM Subject: [CRAN-pretest-archived] CRAN submission simpleroptions 0.2.0 To: luca.cerone at gmail.com Cc: CRAN-submissions at 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 at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
1 day later
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 <ligges at 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.Ligges at r-project.org> Date: Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:29 PM Subject: [CRAN-pretest-archived] CRAN submission simpleroptions 0.2.0 To: luca.cerone at gmail.com Cc: CRAN-submissions at 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 at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel