Re: Wine FAQ removed from the doc tarballs
I always find it annoying when I cannot go to /usr/share/doc/package I suppose the other option is to provide all docs as a seperate package on a release basis (like any other package.) I could be wrong on this, but I don't think the docs are updated on a monthly basis. :) For example, a user could see that the newest Wine package released thus far is from March and the newest Wine docs package could be November of last year (arbitrary date). And if its only 23kb, it shouldn't be much of a problem for modem users; escpecially since it saves them from having to download an extra 23kb with every Wine release when they don't really need it. :) Hiji P.S. Looking at http://www.gimp.org/downloads/ , it looks like they are already doing something similar with their help files. They offer them as a seperate download. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Wine FAQ removed from the doc tarballs
I noticed that we don't include the Wine FAQ in the Wine documentation tarballs. So I added it but then I noticed that it was removed from the tarballs by this patch: --- revision 1.36 date: 2003-09-18 20:51:32 +; author: julliard; state: Exp; lines: +9 -5 Remove the FAQ from the doc tarball, and build it as a single .html file (based on patch by Dimitrie O. Paun). --- What's the reasoning behind this? -- Francois Gouget [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://fgouget.free.fr/ In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they're different.
Re: Wine FAQ removed from the doc tarballs
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 01:21:06PM +0100, Francois Gouget wrote: --- revision 1.36 date: 2003-09-18 20:51:32 +; author: julliard; state: Exp; lines: +9 -5 Remove the FAQ from the doc tarball, and build it as a single .html file (based on patch by Dimitrie O. Paun). --- What's the reasoning behind this? Well, there's not much point to create .ps and .pdf versions of it IMO. This is mostly interesting for WineHQ. -- Dimi.
Re: Wine FAQ removed from the doc tarballs
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 01:21:06PM +0100, Francois Gouget wrote: --- revision 1.36 date: 2003-09-18 20:51:32 +; author: julliard; state: Exp; lines: +9 -5 Remove the FAQ from the doc tarball, and build it as a single .html file (based on patch by Dimitrie O. Paun). --- What's the reasoning behind this? Well, there's not much point to create .ps and .pdf versions of it IMO. This is mostly interesting for WineHQ. But I don't see any reason not to put it in wine-doc-html.tar.gz or wine-doc-txt.tar.gz. The idea of these tar files is so that one can get all the Wine documentation with just one download and the FAQ is part of the documentation. Also I don't see any evidence that the FAQ is changing faster than the rest of the documentation and is more perishable. So I see no reason to cast it apart. -- Francois Gouget [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://fgouget.free.fr/ RFC 2549: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2549.txt IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service
Re: Wine FAQ removed from the doc tarballs
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:04:08PM +0100, Francois Gouget wrote: But I don't see any reason not to put it in wine-doc-html.tar.gz or wine-doc-txt.tar.gz. The idea of these tar files is so that one can get all the Wine documentation with just one download and the FAQ is part of the documentation. Yes, but I can not possibly see why would anyone want to download and read the FAQ like this. A FAQ is essentially a Web type of document, best view and browsed on the Web. By including it in those packages, we just make them bigger for 99.99% of the users that don't care about the FAQ, and those users are probably the ones that have most bandwidth restrictions anyway. But I'm not totally against it being there, if people feel strongly that we must, I'll go with the flow. -- Dimi.
Re: Wine FAQ removed from the doc tarballs
A FAQ is essentially a Web type of document, best view and browsed on the Web. This does not ring true. I dont see that any part of the doc best viewed on the web unless it's something like a change log or last minute info. Someone with limitted acces time or pay by the minute may well want to grab the whole thing at full speed and read it later off line. Neither do I think that the FAQ represents such a large percentage of the total that it merits speciail treatment. If the doc as a whole is deemed too big split it, I doubt that this is necessary. Regards. -- Opera 7 mail on Linux
Re: Wine FAQ removed from the doc tarballs
--- Dimitrie O. Paun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:04:08PM +0100, Francois Gouget wrote: But I don't see any reason not to put it in wine-doc-html.tar.gz or wine-doc-txt.tar.gz. The idea of these tar files is so that one can get all the Wine documentation with just one download and the FAQ is part of the documentation. Yes, but I can not possibly see why would anyone want to download and read the FAQ like this. A FAQ is essentially a Web type of document, best view and browsed on the Web. By including it in those packages, we just make them bigger for 99.99% of the users that don't care about the FAQ, and those users are probably the ones that have most bandwidth restrictions anyway. But I'm not totally against it being there, if people feel strongly that we must, I'll go with the flow. As a web developer (and Wine user), I feel inclined to believe that all major documentation should be removed from the source. A README file pointing the user to the web site for the latest documentation would be most efficient and beneficial. Basically, by doing this, users will begin realizing that if they want documentation, WineHQ is the place to go. In a sense, it is streamlining information. Not only does this reduce user confusion, but it also minimizes the propagation of old documentation which no one will have the power to update. By not consolidating the documentation resource, there will eventually be a certain percentage of the Wine userbase trying to follow outdated Wine documents. Hiji __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: Wine FAQ removed from the doc tarballs
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Hiji wrote: [...] As a web developer (and Wine user), I feel inclined to believe that all major documentation should be removed from the source. A README file pointing the user to the web site for the latest documentation would be most efficient and beneficial. I always find it annoying when I cannot go to /usr/share/doc/package name to find documentation for some piece of software. Granted that's for Debian packages but the principle is the same if you download the wine binaries and the corresponding wine documentation tarball. Also, once compressed the Wine FAQ is less than 23KB which is not much even for a modem (less than 10 seconds). And modem users are also those who are the most likely to pay their Internet access by the minute. Basically, by doing this, users will begin realizing that if they want documentation, WineHQ is the place to go. Again this will greatly penalise modem users with per-minute Internet access fees (i.e. phone bills). In a sense, it is streamlining information. Not only does this reduce user confusion, but it also minimizes the propagation of old documentation which no one will have the power to update. [...] IMHO removing the documentation from the main Wine sources means it is much less likely to get updated because developers will have to get out of their way to even get its sources. Also you may limit the spread of old documentation but you will instead end up in the situation where only documentation available will be the one for the latest Wine and users who have a slightly older Wine will have no documentation at all. Sure right now you'd better use a pretty recent Wine anyway but this will have to change one day (e.g. when we reach 1.0). -- Francois Gouget [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://fgouget.free.fr/ The greatest programming project of all took six days; on the seventh day the programmer rested. We've been trying to debug the *^%$#@ thing ever since. Moral: design before you implement.
Re: Wine FAQ removed from the doc tarballs
Le ven 18/03/2005 à 13:14, Hiji a écrit : [snip] but it also minimizes the propagation of old documentation which no one will have the power to update. By not consolidating the documentation resource, there will eventually be a certain percentage of the Wine userbase trying to follow outdated Wine documents. As long as they follow the docs on the same Wine snapshot from which their documentation came, it's good by me. Mixing new docs with old Wine will do no good (I have symlinks in my ~/.wine/dosdevices, but Wine is expecting drive definitions in config), as well as mixing old docs with new Wine (I don't have a config...). I think most binary packages already provide the docs in a compiled form. If they do not, they should do so, at least in a wine-doc(s) package (if that's the distribution way of doing it), or in the main wine package. Vincent
