Message-ID: <363BD0E0.97C54359@montana.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 20:09:20 -0700
From: bowman <bowman AT montana DOT com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: "port"
References: <3 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 16 DOT 19981030090009 DOT 24879dc0 AT shadow DOT net>
	 <71f91k$1cn$1 AT news DOT luth DOT se> <3 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 16 DOT 19981031134159 DOT 1c9fc43e AT shadow DOT net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com



Ralph Proctor wrote:
> 
> Maybe that's why the readme sometimes assumes
> a high level of skill in the reader.

There are many reasons. Sometimes the readme is just a hasty tack-on. Or
the author might be so far from fng status, he's does the basics
unconsiously. Or she doesn't want to seem to be talking down to a user.
This really stands out when working with ports, where you almost need to
know the culture of the source and target systems to pick up on what's
being said. At times you feel you have to learn every command and nuance
of Unix to understand what is happening in a GNU readme. But most
authors have made a considerable investment of their time in a voluntary
labor, and I think they are willing to put in a few more moments to
improve the basic docs.  This is where the feedback may help. 

I did have in mind a set of readme's and FAQs of the quality of those
included with the djgpp distribution.  The people working on these have
put a lot of time in on them, are responsive to the community, and try
to hone them to perfection. It is sad to see the same old questions on
the list every week, when a few moments reading would have answered the
question. I'll admit to asking questions without first exhausting the
resources at my disposal at times; sometimes you overlook an archive,
don't make a connection, or are just at your wit's end and can't look
one more faq in the face.