From edd @end|ng |rom deb|@n@org  Sun Nov  1 20:57:32 2020
From: edd @end|ng |rom deb|@n@org (Dirk Eddelbuettel)
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2020 13:57:32 -0600
Subject: [Rd] vignettes present in 2 folders or won't work
In-Reply-To: <18624aa0-215e-3afe-28bd-d450a3bae725@gmail.com>
References: <CAERMt4eKagsBYjGRbJOJugWgB03b0QeenJMSdRwbXcy0qqxCMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <aed3b504-93f0-fc77-3bc3-5c7b7286286b@gmail.com>
 <CAERMt4eknfdoHjgxN9gCbHeQ=odtO_YargCWNK=Ntsuv5HbyhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6c01a1ec-9846-e906-d46f-1175c866c4f1@gmail.com>
 <18624aa0-215e-3afe-28bd-d450a3bae725@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <24479.4908.672903.801397@rob.eddelbuettel.com>


The closest to a canonical reference for a static vignette is the basic blog
post by Mark at

 https://www.markvanderloo.eu/yaRb/2019/01/11/add-a-static-pdf-vignette-to-an-r-package/

which I follow in a number of packages.

Back to the original point by Alexandre: No, I do _not_ think we can do
without a double copy of the _pre-made_ pdf ("input") and the _resulting_ pdf
("output").

That bugs me a little too but I take it as a given as static / pre-made
vignettes are non-standard (given lack of any mention in WRE, and the pretty
obvious violation of the "spirit of the law" of vignette which is after all
made to run code, not to avoid it). Yet uses for static vignettes are pretty
valid and here we are with another clear as mud situation.

Dirk

-- 
https://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org



[Rd] vignettes present in 2 folders or won't work
Dirk Eddelbuettel