Re: Robots binary package
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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> Your reference doesn't say that _ALL_ packages need a README. > > > >Quoting from 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'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 >
Re: Robots binary package
> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 13:10:32 -0500 > From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I've never thought about this before but it makes no sense to me to have > rebuild instructions in the binary package. I don't have a problem with putting the rebuild instructions in the source package rather than the binary package. What I have a problem with is saying that there's no requirement to provide rebuild instructions *at all*. Perhaps we need to agree on a standard location where the rebuild instructions will go in the source package, update the Web page to document that location, and put instructions in that location from now on when building new or upgraded packages. jik
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Your reference doesn't say that _ALL_ packages need a README. > >Quoting from 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'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
Re: Robots binary package
> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 09:52:25 -0500 > From: Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Your reference doesn't say that _ALL_ packages need a README. Quoting from 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
Re: Robots binary package
On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 09:46:57PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > The configure flags for the package perhaps. I thought that having Have you seen any `configure' script in the package? There's nothing special to talk about. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: Robots binary package
Your reference doesn't say that _ALL_ packages need a README. What's difficult with Robots? Your reference also doesn't say anything about adding how the package was configured to a README. Your reference was only dealing with where to put the READMEs that need to be created. I don't see a need for a README for all packages. I don't see a need for a README for Robots. Earnie. Robert Collins wrote: > > The configure flags for the package perhaps. I thought that having > /usr/doc/Cygwin/foo-readme was standard for binary packages - see this > thread (Started by you :]) > > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2000-06/msg00021.html > > Rob > === > - Original Message - > From: "Corinna Vinschen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:41 PM > Subject: Re: Robots binary package > > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 04:56:19PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > > > Is missing /usr/doc/Cygwin/Robots-2.0.1.README. > > > > > > Is that intentional? > > > > Yes. What do you want to read? > > > > Corinna > > > > -- > > Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin > to > > Cygwin Developer > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Red Hat, Inc. > > _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Robots binary package
The configure flags for the package perhaps. I thought that having /usr/doc/Cygwin/foo-readme was standard for binary packages - see this thread (Started by you :]) http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2000-06/msg00021.html Rob === - Original Message - From: "Corinna Vinschen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:41 PM Subject: Re: Robots binary package > On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 04:56:19PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > > Is missing /usr/doc/Cygwin/Robots-2.0.1.README. > > > > Is that intentional? > > Yes. What do you want to read? > > Corinna > > -- > Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to > Cygwin Developer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Red Hat, Inc. >
Re: Robots binary package
On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 04:56:19PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > Is missing /usr/doc/Cygwin/Robots-2.0.1.README. > > Is that intentional? Yes. What do you want to read? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Robots binary package
Is missing /usr/doc/Cygwin/Robots-2.0.1.README. Is that intentional? Rob
