I very much like the current spec and would wish to stick to it. I'm
not going to go about changing the packaging scheme (especially for
the distros).
On 8/27/06, Lyrical Nanoha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
>
> > Documentation is need for program
Unfortunately, that is difficult because the htmlhelp files are usually zipped.
On 8/27/06, Aitor Santamaría <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just another one: perhaps we should think and standarize the HELP
> (HTML-Help) directories, so that we distribute the HTM with the
> packages itself, as oppose
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
> Documentation is need for program using and should be included into
> binary package. Or, you may use triple-architecture: binary package
> (executables and other (data) files, which need for those executables),
> documentation package (user guid
Just another one: perhaps we should think and standarize the HELP
(HTML-Help) directories, so that we distribute the HTM with the
packages itself, as opposed to submit them to the HTML-Help
maintainer, and hope that both programs (mine and HTML-Help) will be
distributed together with the sync-ed ve
Hi,
2006/8/28, Eric Auer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> To bring this in context of our installer: The "sources
> included" CDROM could just contain ONE set of FULL packages
> and selectively skip files in source/ directories at the
> moment when the packages are unzipped. That would also allow
> full 8 c
Hi!
> Let me disagree. "Source package" should contain only sources and other
> files, which not need for program' user (not developer). "Binary package"
> shouldn't contain these files. For example, doc/emm386/build.txt should be
> present only in sources package, but it not need in binary p
Hi!
27-???-2006 23:50 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Auer) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
EA> Blair pointed me to the fact that "source" packages
EA> are not supposed to contain docs, according to our
EA> specs. I object that recommendation. In my opinion,
EA> "source" packages should con
I agree with Aitor.
On 8/27/06, Aitor Santamaría <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Two small notes:
> (1) The HELP file (for FASTHELP) is probably NOT required in the
> source package either
> (2) There are docs that are very specific to sources (e.g. how to
> build and such), that I myself usually don
Two small notes:
(1) The HELP file (for FASTHELP) is probably NOT required in the
source package either
(2) There are docs that are very specific to sources (e.g. how to
build and such), that I myself usually don't pack under DOC, but under
SRC\DOC, so that they are only installed with sources (I d
I think you are referring to this mini-HOWTO:
http://fd-doc.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?n=FdDocEn.Distribution
Yes, I agree that the source package should contain everything short of
the generated binaries. If there are dupe files, let them be
overwritten. This mini-HOWTO needs to be updat
Hi all,
Blair pointed me to the fact that "source" packages
are not supposed to contain docs, according to our
specs. I object that recommendation. In my opinion,
"source" packages should contain everything outside
the bin directory, and "binary" packages should
contain everything outside the sou
11 matches
Mail list logo
