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.
