On 2012-08-24, at 7:28 AM, Mark Tompsett wrote: > Greetings, > > Right now. People are probably doing “less INSTALL.blah”. Less is standard. > We’ve got a perl application being installed, so perldoc isn’t a far fetched > expectation. As long as we get a format where people can easily “<program> > <install file>” after a “sudo apt-get install <program>”, I don’t care. > Particularly if there is a README.1ST file, or just a base INSTALL file, that > tells people how to read the INSTALL files. But this begs the question: are > we creating a meta-problem? > > Additionally, the notion of converting the documents to a Wiki page makes me > wonder if perhaps we have forgotten to ask the reason for having the install > files.
> Is the INSTALL.blah file supposed to be there as an offline version of the > Wiki? other way around, the wiki pages are built from the INSTALL.* files in the git repo > Should we split only by OS version? yes, i think thats enough each INSTALL.* file contains the 2 [or 3] install methods (tarball, git, [packages]) INSTALL (a tiny file saying "please read the INSTALL file for your OS") INSTALL.Debian INSTALL.Ubuntu INSTALL.Fedora INSTALL.Centos INSTALL.Netbsd INSTALL.Openbsd INSTALL.WEB (for the web install, for all OS) _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
