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
Message-ID: <3BF4523C.7020801@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:39:40 -0500
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
CC: Gareth Pearce <tilps AT hotmail DOT com>, cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: nano - packaged and ready for some criticism :)
References: <OE14B5VROXacMj0AGUO000119f7 AT hotmail DOT com> <06a501c16e2a$18a71750$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Robert Collins wrote:


> 3) I'd suggest ( cd /usr/info ; for i in nano.info ; do install-info
> $i --dir-file=dir ; done ) instead of installing _every_ info file in
> the directory, as that could get quite slow :].


I'll take the blame for this.  Two of my recent packages (the experimental 
versions of autoconf and automake wrapper scripts) had postinstall scripts 
that installed *every* info file.  This was a thinko on my part, but it 
seems to have spread...

> However, as there are changes to this just-around-the corner, when Chuck
> and I convince one another :] 


Ha!

> I think it'll be fine as is. Or you could
> change it, as you'll have to recompress the tarball anyway to get the
> updated install script into the source.


> One last thing, and at this point I don't think it matters, you don't
> include info on how to recreate the binary package and source package in
> your README. I don't think this is an issue, as long as you do document
> that before handing the maintenance to someone else (thinking long term
> here).


I think it DOES matter, but once we (the larger we, not just Robert and I) 
end up with a new -src packaging standard that includes autobuild 
scripts/makefiles, the need for this information in the *README* goes away.

Until then, I think that information SHOULD be there, but it's not a 
showstopper.  Just make a note of it, Gareth, and add the info to your next 
regularly scheduled update of the package.

--Chuck