At 6:56 Uhr -0500 09.03.2002, David R. Morrison wrote: >I have a policy question to bring up, regarding our requirements for >documentation. Is the following OK? > > Package: foobar > Source: gnu > Depends: %N-shlibs (= %v-%r) > License: GPL > InstallScript: << > make install prefix=%i > mkdir -p %i/share/doc/%n > ln -s %p/share/doc/%N-shlibs %i/share/doc/%n > << > SplitOff: << > Package: %N-shlibs > Files: lib/*.%v.dylib lib/*.1.dylib > DocFiles: COPYRIGHT > << > SplitOff2: << > Package: %N-bin > Depends: %N-shlibs > Files: bin/ > InstallScript: << > mkdir -p %i/share/doc/%n > ln -s %p/share/doc/%N-shlibs %i/share/doc/%n > << > << > >What I am doing is providing the documentation in only one of the splitoff >pieces, in a case in which all of the splitoff pieces depend on that one >piece. Then the required documentation directories for the other parts >are just symbolic links. > >Argument in favor: since there are explicit dependencies, and since we are >only building things once, users will be able to find the documentation >we are relying on to justify the license. > >Argument against: a users might mess up a fink installation somehow, and >only have one of the packages installed. Then the documentation might not >be present. > >I would like some opinions about this. I am inclined to say it is OK.
Personally, I think it's OK for most docs, except for LICENSE/COPYING/etc. files, which should always physically be shipped in the binary. Maybe the same should be done for any README that explains how to obtain the source etc. Just my two cents, Max -- ----------------------------------------------- Max Horn Software Developer email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: (+49) 6151-494890 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
