Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 13:00:50 +0000
Message-ID: <1053-Thu23Nov2000130050+0000-starksb@ebi.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: emacs 20.7.1 (via feedmail 9-beta-7 I);
	VM 6.75 under Emacs 20.7.1
From: David Starks-Browning <starksb AT ebi DOT ac DOT uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Subject: Re: FAQ entry? (Was: Texinfo-4.0)
In-Reply-To: <3A1C79BB.6F1DEA77@ece.gatech.edu>
References: <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 30 DOT 0011221237210 DOT 10055-100000 AT c445745-a DOT stcla1 DOT sfba DOT home DOT com>
	<3A1C3784 DOT 9DEF7B94 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
	<20001122163225 DOT B11387 AT redhat DOT com>
	<585-Wed22Nov2000234324+0000-starksb AT ebi DOT ac DOT uk>
	<3A1C79BB DOT 6F1DEA77 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>

On Wednesday 22 Nov 00, Charles Wilson writes:
> David Starks-Browning wrote:
> > 
> > On Wednesday 22 Nov 00, Christopher Faylor writes:
> > > Do we have a FAQ entry on what it takes to contribute a package?  It's
> > > not that hard but this question keeps coming up.
> > 
> > No, we don't.  I would gladly add one, but someone else will have to
> > write it, as I have not contributed any packages.
> 
> I just posted a short recipe -- but it's not well-written enough to be
> part of the FAQ.  Feel free to edit it to suit.  

Chuck,

Thanks.  I haven't scrutinized it, but my first impression is that
this is too much for a FAQ entry.  It seems to me that a separate web
page, just for package maintainers, would be more appropriate for
this.  (I don't mean private to package maintainers, just topical.)

That said, I've been contemplating a new faq-o-matic faq, which could
accomodate an entry like this more readily.  (I know we've all talked
about faq-o-matic before.)  But I'm afraid such a migration may be a
long way off.  Certainly not this year!

If nothing else, the current FAQ could provide URL's to messages like
Chuck's.

(Just my editorial opinion, I could possibly be swayed.)

Cheers,
David