Authors@R #49
Authors@R #49
Conversation
| role = c("aut", "cre")) | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe you can add a paragraph (or callout note) to inform that the Maintainer and Author fields are auto-generated based on the Authors@R and therefore don't need to be added manually.
Adding them by hand varying from the auto-generated version will cause an automatic rejection on CRAN.
website/description_issues.qmd
Outdated
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ::: callout-note | ||
| If your package uses the older method of specifying separate `Maintainer` and `Author` fields in the DESCRIPTION file, it won’t be rejected solely because of this. However, this approach is less preferred. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| If your package uses the older method of specifying separate `Maintainer` and `Author` fields in the DESCRIPTION file, it won’t be rejected solely because of this. However, this approach is less preferred. | |
| If your package uses the older method of specifying separate `Maintainer` and `Author` fields in the DESCRIPTION file, it will be rejected because of this. |
There was a change a few months ago. Since R packages now have their own doi, using Authors@R is now mandatory.
For old packages, declaring the Authors using the old system it is recommended to change. However, your package won't be taken off CRAN because of a missing Authors@R-field.
We recommend changing soon, though (also said by Kurt Hornik in his keynote speech at useR!2024).
Co-authored-by: Beni Altmann <100207206+Baltmann01@users.noreply.github.com>
add in PR feedback Co-authored-by: Lluís Revilla <llrs@users.noreply.github.com>
I want to think about adding in #45 to this PR