Re: [Rd] Minimal DESCRIPTION file

From: Prof Brian Ripley <>
Date: Thu 26 Aug 2004 - 06:39:36 EST

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, David Brahm wrote:

> My "" contributed package fails under R-devel. creates minimal
> packages which consist only of a "DESCRIPTION" file and the "R" and "data"
> subdirectories, but .find.package() now rejects them because the DESCRIPTION
> file lacks a "Version" field. I will fix to add a "Version" field.
> My question is, what else is necessary for a minimal package? "Writing R
> Extensions" states:
> "The `Package', `Version', `License', `Description', `Title', `Author',
> and `Maintainer' fields are mandatory..."
> So should I really add all these (superfluous) fields, to avoid future
> rejection?

At least Package, Version and Title are not superfluous: they are used by library().

> (A comment inside .find.package() refers to tools:::check_package_description,
> but I could not find such a function.

It is tools:::.check_package_description

> Is there a plan for a universal package
> validator, and if so, what are its requirements?)

It's called R CMD check, and also we have long required that packages be INSTALLed. So we require valid metadata in pkg/Meta and a Built: field in the DESCRIPTION, since 2.0.0 will require a package to have been INSTALLed under 2.0.0. (That has implications for the indices too.)

> Bigger picture, will be rendered obsolete by lazy loading?

Is any one using it? Lazy data loading in a package seems much simpler to me, as did direct use of delay() earlier.

Brian D. Ripley,        
Professor of Applied Statistics,
University of Oxford,             Tel:  +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road,                     +44 1865 272866 (PA)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK                Fax:  +44 1865 272595

______________________________________________ mailing list
Received on Thu Aug 26 06:42:30 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed 03 Nov 2004 - 22:45:10 EST