On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:31:53PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote: > Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Package: wnpp > > Severity: wishlist > > > > * Package name : r-noncran-design > > Version : 1.1.6 > > Upstream Author : Frank Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * URL : http://hesweb1.med.virginia.edu/biostat/rms > > * License : GPL > > Description : Regression modeling strategies > > > > Design is one of two packages by Frank Harrell and requires the other, > > Hmisc. > > Design provides the code supporting Harrell's 2002 book on 'Regression > > Modeling Strategies'. I intend to stick with the convention of calling the > > (Debian) source package the same as the (source) R package -- design -- but > > then normalizing on r-noncran-design as done by prior packages maintained by > > Chris Lawrence and myself. > > > I think that 'design' is, also as a source package name, way too > generic. You can't in any way defer what this source package is > about... The same applies (but not as much) to hmisc, IMHO. Why not > name the source packages the same as the binary packages?
a) Transparency, so 'name it the same as upstream'. CRAN packages have their own little conventions and infrastructure. IMHO we gain little by adding another layer of complexity. b) Precedence. We already have 7 or 8 R add-on packages. Several of these do the same thing. In fact, mine do -- whereas Chris Lawrence's don't. Doug Bates plans to release some too. Some uniformity would be good. Comments, please? Dirk -- Don't drink and derive. Alcohol and analysis don't mix.
