> On 06 May 2015, at 10:53, Christophe Demarey <christophe.dema...@inria.fr> > wrote: > > > Le 5 mai 2015 à 17:14, Kasper Osterbye a écrit : > >> Marcus Denker-4 wrote >>> Right now we do not have yet Package comments. >>> >>> But we should! >>> >>> MBInfo seems to be a private class of Versionner… >>> >>> For package comments we first need to evaluate the design space… >>> e.g. where to store it in the image, how to store it in Monticello… >> >> OK - Makes sense. >> >> From my perspective, the key to getting this of the ground is to make sure >> such comments can be written and read in Nautilus. The package objects used >> in Nautilus are from "RPackage". >> Thus, the problem, in my view reduces to: >> a) How to make room in RPackage for a comment field (add one more IV) >> b) How to integrate the storage of this field in connection with Monticello >> as Marcus writes. > > I don't think is the good way to do that. > We are working on adding meta-data to packages. These meta-data includes a > package description (or comment) but also a lot of other data. > You will not be able to store everything in rpackage inst. var. And of > course, there is also the problem that Monticello is not able to store > meta-data (e.g. STON files). > For now, the best option is to use a PackageManifest. > > If you want to allow package comments in Nautilus, I would display the > content of the description method of the package manifest if available. >
Yes… this could be the easiest for now. Then as a second step, we add support to store resources in Monticello. Marcus