Re: Tony Nugent's arguments about RH .spec files
Albert Dorofeev albert@mail.dma.be
Thu, 21 Jan 1999 09:30:30 +0100 (CET)
Ethan writes:
>
> On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Albert Dorofeev wrote:
>
> > That was just a joke! Don't do it. You will have two different
> > versions of all documentation. What are you going to do about
> > the FAQ on the Web? Or if you put up the README from AS there,
> > which version is it going to be?
>
> Sounds like a "nay" vote on the suggestion. :)
>
> In defense of the idea, though, I want to point out that there are
> already two versions of the distribution. Perhaps two (corresponding)
> versions of the documentation is not out of line, so long as the
> change can be automated (which it can be).
Well, you are in for a little hell on both the list and IRC
because people will start asking "Why do you say /usr/local/share?
You just told that other guy to look in /usr/share!"
And then they read an answer to someone else's question and
they try it out and come back screaming "It does not work!"
Is this realistic? Oh, yes. People who ask "where did the binary go?"
will ask these questions as well.
Here is another thing I thought of. Instead of using real paths
in the doce you could use like "shared directory" and "user
directory". Those terms should be defined with all possible
clarity in the beginning with an explanation how and why they
differ for different sources.
Albert
--
Albert Dorofeev http://www.tigr.net/ http://bewoner.dma.be/Albert/
fingerprint = C9 49 D0 F3 41 FA 8C D8 E9 5C 6A D4 F1 6D 65 15
Anything good in life is either illegal, immoral or fattening.