[R-pkg-devel] Fwd: [CRAN-pretest-archived] CRAN submission simpleroptions 0.2.0

Wed Jan 10 21:07:59 CET 2018

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
>>
>>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]