Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
list-help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
list-post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Sender: corinna AT cvhp DOT vinschen DOT de
Message-ID: <3944A8D1.D0719467@vinschen.de>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:09:37 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna AT vinschen DOT de>
Reply-To: cygapp <cygwin-apps AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Organization: Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat company
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686)
X-Accept-Language: de, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: AJ Reins <tbisp AT uswest DOT net>
CC: cygapp <cygwin-apps AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Subject: Re: [FYI]: doc directory [was Re: [RFD]: Where to put the important 
 README files?]
References: <200006071636 DOT JAA09647 AT cygnus DOT com> <20000607154305 DOT F16163 AT cygnus DOT com> <39438E6B DOT 55D7915D AT vinschen DOT de> <3943B18A DOT 8EB0E648 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <39444D1D DOT 3D1977FD AT pop DOT mpls DOT uswest DOT net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

AJ Reins wrote:
> And I, as well, will adhere to this. However, I do have a small question
> as to what should go in this directory (which in my case would be
> /usr/doc/Cygwin/bash if I understand this correctly)? Do I put a copy

No, it should be

	/usr/doc/Cygwin

and the README would be in case of current bash:

	bash-2.04.README

> of the example bash-completions that is currently in the source only
> distribution? Otherwise, I have no idea as to what should go in this
> directory. Comments are, as usual, most welcome!

AFAICS, there's currently no need for a Cygwin specific README for
bash. The README in that directory is needed, if the installation
and/or configuration of the package is somewhat complicated and
above all _different_ from the descriptions in the documentation
already provided by package. You know, Windows specific differences,
etc.

BTW: Michael Rings suggestion is definitely worth to think of.
The other package docs (not man and info files, of course) should
have a similar place and the

	/usr/doc/APPNAME-VERSION

is the strategy already used by RH Linux. We should follow that
when providing binary packages.

This all is mostly a "learning by doing" process and people like
me are a bit halfhearted in providing documentation at all. It would
be nice if we all support one another by telling when the new
package isn't according to the new `documentation standard'.
 

Corinna