hi,
am Mittwoch 10 August 2011 (19:05) schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
> all of that sounds quite straight-forward, and maybe you are right that
> this should eventually become the _only_ supported way to distribute
> add-on plugins. However, I am a bit reluctant to remove the GHNS-based
> approac
Hi,
On Wednesday 10 August 2011, meik michalke wrote:
> in summary, there's only two differences:
> - a valid DESCRIPTION needs to be added (which is very easy, using
>write.dcf(), which i just discovered for myself... see below)
> - all the previous contets move unchanged as they are from t
hi,
Am Montag, 8. August 2011, 17:41:26 schrieb meik michalke:
> you can easily create an "R package" that has no real package payload (like
> i said, a valid DESCRIPTION file is roughly it). so we'd just have to
> alter the specification of external plugins a little, so that each
> external RKWa
Hi,
On Tuesday 09 August 2011, meik michalke wrote:
> > (Timing is a bit difficult, since the metric of interest is time spent
> > with cold disk cache. When the disk cache is hot,
> > .rk.get.installed.packages() is pretty fast, anyway).
>
> doesn't installed.packages() chache its results anyway
