> On 06 May 2015, at 10:53, Christophe Demarey <Christophe.Demarey@inria.fr> wrote:
>
>
> Le 5 mai 2015 �� 17:14, Kasper Osterbye a ��crit :
>
>> 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