Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <00e601c18ff6$cbd0cc70$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> From: "Robert Collins" To: 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> <20011228154829 DOT 16845 DOT qmail AT lizard DOT curl DOT com> <20011228181032 DOT GA31028 AT redhat DOT com> Subject: Re: Robots binary package Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 10:24:27 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Dec 2001 23:24:27.0856 (UTC) FILETIME=[CB4BE500:01C18FF6] My impression has been that a README in that location was required (since that thread occured), which is why it is listed as required in setup.html. I don't particularly care either way , but I think that _consistency_ is a very good idea, and that we should either bitbucket all those readme's (remember there is still /usr/doc/pkg-version/ ) or make it mandatory. And if we get rid of the README's, then a basic man page should be mandatory. Rob === ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Faylor" To: Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 5:10 AM Subject: Re: Robots binary package > On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 10:48:29AM -0500, Jonathan Kamens wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 09:52:25 -0500 > >> From: Earnie Boyd > >> > >> Your reference doesn't say that _ALL_ packages need a README. > > > >Quoting from : > > > > 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've never thought about this before but it makes no sense to me to have > rebuild instructions in the binary package. That's just cluttering up > the disk space for 99% of the people who install the package. > > I could see the need for some kind of description about what the package > is, but even there, I think that a man page would suffice. I agree with > Corinna that there should be no absolute need for a README. > > Of course, I would say that because none of my packages have READMEs > either... > > cgf >