On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 03:55:22PM -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote: > > I presume you're the maintainer (haven't read the document in > > while). The reason why I wanted it in DDP tree, is purely technical, > > and for convenience sake - as you may have noticed, we are trying > > to put some documents from the sources to the web pages, and having > > tutorial in the same directory with same (well, not same but alike) > > Makefile makes it easier. However, it is possible to handle it even > > if it's not in the same branch. > > Also, if tutorial was in the DDP tree it would feel more integrated. > > Well, at least to me it would, since we already have FAQ in the DDP > > tree and tutorial would round it up. > > Makes sense. If you do this be sure the new Makefile includes equivalent > targets as my current one (in particular the DOS text target).
I haven't had a chance to look at it - but I think all needed changes are just adjusting the rules' names and making sure that they follow some defined variables (such as $PUBLISHDIR). If you have any additional rules (the dos text target?) they can remain (and they can be reintegrated). > > AFAIK, DDP CVS tree is readable and writable by any Debian developer. > > I hope you don't have a problem with that - and I think we can assure > > you noone will write anything in it without considering maintainer's > > (your) opinion. > > No problem with that. Very good. > > I don't want you to feel anyone forced you to move it, especially > > because reasons are purely political and aesthetic. > > I'm in favor of the move, as long as I don't have to figure out how to > do it. :-) Maintainers should have the technical info about what would it take to do it. At worst, we can just make a new subdir and commit the current checkouted tutorial to it, but there should be a cleaner solution. Adam? -- enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/
