Re: Tony Nugent's arguments about RH .spec files
Ethan (allanon@crystaltokyo.com)
Thu, 21 Jan 1999 02:29:17 -0800 (PST)
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Albert Dorofeev wrote:
> 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.
So you're advocating installing (from rpm) to /usr/local? Not that I
have any problem with breaking the rpm "standard". :)
::sigh:: If it were up to me, any rpm created for AfterStep would be
unofficial (and unsupported) anyway.
----
Ethan Fischer
allanon@crystaltokyo.com
http://members.xoom.com/allanon1