Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 14:40:26 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Openssh question
Message-ID: <20010906144026.A549@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20010906131556 DOT 023334d8 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> <C9A98ED35114D31197D000805FEA668E027B2140 AT mucexch2 DOT muc DOT sdm. <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20010906131556 DOT 023334d8 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20010906141414 DOT 04d3d480 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010906141414.04d3d480@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i

On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 02:19:52PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>At 01:53 PM 9/6/2001, fred AT ontosys DOT com wrote:
>>On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 01:20:25PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>> > To me, it seems somewhat obvious that /usr/doc would have useful
>> > documentation but perhaps we need a (more?)  pointer(s) to it to
>> > enforce this notion for everyone?
>>
>>Even though the above is obvious to some, it is _not_ obvious that
>>some packages have their own folders under /usr/doc and others have
>>READMEs in the /usr/doc/Cygwin folder.  Perhaps the FAQ could
>>emphasize looking in /usr/doc/Cygwin, not just /usr/doc.  The current
>>FAQ doesn't refer to "/usr/doc" at all.
>
>I concede some may not think to look for documentation in the Cygwin
>installation tree at all.  Certainly for them, there may be some value 
>in having additional pointers to there, although I wonder if it will be
>enough to get everyone to look there (I kind of doubt it).  Still, 
>there's probably no reason not to try.  Anything that promotes self-help
>and more browsing for existing information is a good thing. 

I think I have to again point out that people seem to think "FAQ" when
they should be thinking documentation.

However, I would like to see someone take a stab at providing actual words
here.

Isn't anyone interested in performing some community service and updating
cygwin's documentation?

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/