From geoffjentry at hexdump.org  Wed Aug 28 20:19:39 2013
From: geoffjentry at hexdump.org (Geoff Jentry)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Rd] Minimum requirements for package submission
In-Reply-To: <21022.2225.867873.997588@max.nulle.part>
References: <CAPrRzuyMDh64qTw=DSEAunVfjG5AFY=aMHr5NrE9L+f5RmZNkw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABdHhvGt184JfHZAw1k_GpGmiGgaK-XnCLqRofOvU9=WUgUuGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKFxdiRjTE6avW9An2_X6HDV63f+Sv8LsO6FESrY0MzGKdHOLg@mail.gmail.com>
	<21022.2225.867873.997588@max.nulle.part>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1308281115520.22063@cardinals.dreamhost.com>

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> The change to preferring vignettes/ over inst/doc/ is just one of many; there
> is also an ongoing preference for vignettes that fully reproducible from
> source. Which may eventually put an end to non-Rnw / non-(la)tex vignettes.

I'm currently stymied by this. I was one who did the stub-Rnw trick 
previously - it would be unwise for the vignette for twitteR to be run 
truly dynamically as it requires someone's real credentials to process.

Not a problem, I run it by hand before submitting and then use the stub 
.Rnw for the vignette metadata to get picked up by CRAN.

With the move to vignettes/ over inst/doc, that hasn't worked. doh!

Aside: If someone knows of a way to get a non-autogenerated documentation 
file linked on a package's CRAN page (other than URL, which is a 
possibility) I'd love to hear ideas.

-J



[Rd] Minimum requirements for package submission
Geoff Jentry