Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 09:31:30 -0700
From: Dario Alcocer <alcocer AT helixdigital DOT com>
To: John Morrison <john DOT r DOT morrison AT ntlworld DOT com>
Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Ghostscript packaging for X11, non-X11 versions
Message-ID: <20020707093130.A13176@ns.helixdigital.com>
References: <20020706121858 DOT A4468 AT ns DOT helixdigital DOT com> <NCEBJJFMCAOKNNABBFIMGELPCCAA DOT john DOT r DOT morrison AT ntlworld DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <NCEBJJFMCAOKNNABBFIMGELPCCAA.john.r.morrison@ntlworld.com>; from john.r.morrison@ntlworld.com on Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 06:08:46AM +0100

On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 06:08:46AM +0100, John Morrison wrote:
> > As a maintainer, I'd rather provide the user with the complete package.
> > If the original software includes documentation, then in my opinion
> > the package I produce won't be complete unless I include the original
> > documentation.
> 
> My only point is that you aren't producing *one* package.  If you were
> coding two classes you _would_ factor out common code into a seperate
> base class/included/hidden/internal/.../common entity.

Yes, good point.

> > In my opinion, distributing software without documentation is like
> > selling hardware without manuals.  Sure, you can *still* use it, but
> > it's really a pain to download the documentation if you'd like explore
> > additional features or configurations.
> 
> I object to the fact that you think I suggested that you dont 
> distribute the documentation - I *NEVER* suggested that you don't.

Yes, you're quite right, my mistake.  You did say put the documentation
in a separate package, not leave it out.

> Sometimes it's nice to be able to download the documentation without
> having to install the software then you can check it does x, y, z
> without having to clutter your harddrive.

That may be so, but what's more likely is that a casual new user will
only install the minimum required, and then ask simple questions that
would be answered by 5 minutes of reading the documentation.  I say this
because this scenario plays itself out constantly on this list :-)
Making the documentation not "optional" hopefully will prod them into
reading before demanding answers on the list ;-)

> At the end of the day - it was just a suggestion to *help* you
> factor out commonality.  Sorry you disliked it so.

That's OK, no need to say sorry, I really didn't dislike the suggestion
at all, I was just trying to explain my rationale.  I think I've got a
few more years before I become another BOFH :-) ...

Thanks for the input.

-- 
Dario Alcocer -- Sr. Software Developer, Helix Digital Inc.
alcocer AT helixdigital DOT com -- http://www.helixdigital.com

--
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/