[rkward-devel] RKWard Git repos up for testing

[meik michalke]

hi,

Am Dienstag, 11. November 2014, 09:50:02 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
> On Monday 10 November 2014 21:23:24 meik michalke wrote:
> > Am Montag, 10. November 2014, 19:37:09 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
> > >   git at git.kde.org:scratch/tfry/rkward-svn-import.git
> > 
> > how would i get my pubkey up there? shall i send it to you?
> 
> As Nicolás wrote, you manage that through identity.kde.org, and you also
> need to apply to be added to the "developer" group.

yes, will do.

> That said, the repo is not ready for pushing to it

i didn't want to push yet, just wanted to clone the repo and couldn't because 
my key was missing. but that will be solvend soon.

> Well that's mostly a separate discussion, though. I have now added a new
> "organization" on github: rkward-community. Tell me your account names,
> there, and I'll add you, then move over the external plugins repo.

they call me unDocUMeantIt

> > which brings me to: how/where will we host the package repository
> > (http://rkward.sourceforge.net/R/)?
> 
> Well, good question. I guess we'll have to ask the KDE sysadmins about this
> (could be http://rkward.kde.org/R/, somewhere on downloads.kde.org, or
> pretty much anything else. In fact, why not CRAN? Would the plugin packages
> fail the CRAN checks for containing inst, only?).

hm, i think CRAN is the wrong place for these packages. sooner or later, it 
will definitely result in pointless discussions about new rules in the repo 
policies and we would have to rebuild and resubmit everything each time. for 
instance, a while ago it was decided that on CRAN it is forbidden(!) to ship 
your source code tarball with a copy of the GPL, because they "have it on the 
homepage"; and they forced me to take one package off CRAN again because it 
uses an unexported function that the R development core team recommends(!) to 
use. so even if our packages would be considered ok today, that might no 
longer be the case tomorrow.

at the same time there's little to gain -- our packages are only useful with 
RKWard anyway, so it's not so much an obstacle to have them in a repo that is 
almost only known to the application. i'd really prefer to do that ourselves.  
all we need is a little webspace.

> Until we have a good long term plan, I'd say not to change this, though.

ok, i was just curious.


viele grüße :: m.eik

-- 
  dipl. psych. meik michalke
  institut f"ur experimentelle psychologie
  abt. f"ur diagnostik und differentielle psychologie
  heinrich-heine-universit"at d-40204 d"usseldorf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/rkward-devel/attachments/20141111/01f1b178/attachment.sig>