Date:	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 14:24:56 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Ralph Proctor <ralphgpr AT shadow DOT net>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com, bowman AT montana DOT com
Subject:	Re: "port"
In-Reply-To:	<3.0.1.16.19981031134159.1c9fc43e@shadow.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.981101142442.6846Y-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On Sat, 31 Oct 1998, Ralph Proctor wrote:

> The problems I have had with some readme files (not the ones that come with
> the normal contributions to this list) have been that following the text
> TO THE LETTER the build does not work, because the writer must be
> assuming the reader is aware of a number of things outside the scope
> of the readme.

Crafting a good and clearly-worded README is not an easy job, and
people who write those README files are merely human.  Sometimes, they
forget to mention things that seem too basic to them.  Sometimes,
English isn't their first (or even second) language, and they fail to
make their intent clear and unambiguous enough.  And sometimes, they
just don't have enough time.

> Doing exactly what is ordered in the readme should do the trick.
> If additional work or expertise is called for then the writer should
> IMHO so state.

That is true.  However, please be aware that explaining ``everything''
is not possible in a README.  So you must draw a line somewhere, and
it is a hard decision (in my experience) to decide where to draw it.

But I'm sure that if you point important omissions to an author of a
port, the next release will have better instructions.

- Raw text -