[R-pkg-devel] Get an empty note for "checking DESCRIPTION meta-information" when I run devtools::build_win()

[Hugh Parsonage]

Thank you. Could you provide the contents of DESCRIPTION too? That might
provide the richest clue. If you have a link to an online copy of the
package that could be helpful too.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 12:01 Eggleston, Barry <beggleston using rti.org> wrote:

> I am working through my first package submission.  When I checked my
> package using devtools::build_win(), I got no errors and two notes.  One
> note is simply the expected note that my package is a new submission.  My
> second note involves DESCRIPTION meta-information, but nothing is printed
> so I don't know what to focus on.  I have copied the important parts of my
> 00check.log from CRAN below for context.  What areas of my DESCRIPTION file
> might create such an empty note?  Thanks in advance for any help you might
> give me.
>
> * checking CRAN incoming feasibility ... NOTE
> Maintainer: 'Barry Eggleston <beggleston using rti.org<mailto:beggleston using rti.org
> >>'
>
> New submission
> * 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 hidden files and directories ... OK
> * checking for portable file names ... OK
> * checking whether package 'BayesCTDesign' can be installed ... OK
> * checking installed package size ... OK
> * checking package directory ... OK
> * checking DESCRIPTION meta-information ... NOTE
>
> * 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
> * loading checks for arch 'i386'
> ** 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 use of S3 registration ... OK
> * loading checks for arch 'x64'
> ** 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 use of S3 registration ... OK
> * checking dependencies in R code ... OK
> * checking S3 generic/method consistency ... OK
> * checking replacement functions ... OK
> * checking foreign function calls ... OK
> * checking R code for possible problems ... [41s] OK
> * checking Rd files ... OK
> * checking Rd metadata ... OK
> * checking Rd line widths ... 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 examples ...
> ** running examples for arch 'i386' ... [19s] OK
> ** running examples for arch 'x64' ... [22s] OK
> * checking PDF version of manual ... OK
> * DONE
> Status: 2 NOTEs
>
> Barry
>
>
>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]