Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: 28 Dec 2001 10:48:29 -0500
Message-ID: <20011228154829.16845.qmail@lizard.curl.com>
From: Jonathan Kamens <jik AT curl DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
In-reply-to: <3C2C8729.91EDD8C6@yahoo.com> (message from Earnie Boyd on Fri,
	28 Dec 2001 09:52:25 -0500)
Subject: Re: Robots binary package
References: <05bb01c18f64$5f3142d0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20011228114125 DOT M27340 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <065901c18f8d$05f2e650$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3C2C8729 DOT 91EDD8C6 AT yahoo DOT com>

>  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 don't see anything here to suggest that this file is optional.

If the intent is to make the file optional, then somebody with the
authority to do so should change the text on this page to indicate
that the file is optional.

If the intent is to have the file be included with every package, then
the people producing packages should follow the rules, and packages
which don't follow the rules should be rejected.

Personally, I believe that every package should have this file.  I
don't by Corinna's claim that it's not necessary because there's
nothing interesting to put in the README.  With all due respect, even
something as simple as, "Use the Makefiles in the source package
as-is.  Run 'make' and then 'make install'," is enough useful
information to warrant the inclusion of the README.  Because, you see,
if the README isn't included, then people who want to do useful work
on the package are put in the position of guessing whether the README
wasn't included because (a) there's important information that should
be there, but the package maintainer just didn't bother to document
it, or (b) nothing needs to be documented.

If you argue that whenever the README is missing, the correct answer
is (b), then I'll laugh at you.

  jik