Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/12/28/18:24:33
My impression has been that a README in that location was required
(since that thread occured), which is why it is listed as required in
setup.html.
I don't particularly care either way , but I think that _consistency_ is
a very good idea, and that we should either bitbucket all those readme's
(remember there is still /usr/doc/pkg-version/ ) or make it mandatory.
And if we get rid of the README's, then a basic man page should be
mandatory.
Rob
===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 5:10 AM
Subject: Re: Robots binary package
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 10:48:29AM -0500, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> >> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 09:52:25 -0500
> >> From: Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com>
> >>
> >> Your reference doesn't say that _ALL_ packages need a README.
> >
> >Quoting from <URL:http://cygwin.com/setup.html#package_contents>:
> >
> > In your binary package, include a file
> > /usr/doc/Cygwin/foo-vendor-suffix.README containing (at a minimum)
> > the information needed for an end user to recreate the package.
This
> > includes CFLAGS settings, configure parameters, etc.
>
> I've never thought about this before but it makes no sense to me to
have
> rebuild instructions in the binary package. That's just cluttering up
> the disk space for 99% of the people who install the package.
>
> I could see the need for some kind of description about what the
package
> is, but even there, I think that a man page would suffice. I agree
with
> Corinna that there should be no absolute need for a README.
>
> Of course, I would say that because none of my packages have READMEs
> either...
>
> cgf
>
- Raw text -