On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 07:56:54PM +0200, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 13, 2003, Matthias Kurz wrote:
>
> > Are there more Informations about other fields in the .spec:
> > [...]
>
> I'm planning to collect all essential information for a OpenPKG .spec
> file developer. Once it is available I'll post it here.
Cool !
[...]
> > - What criterias does one have to use to decide what version of OpenPKG
> > is required (openpkg >= 20020206, or what) ?
>
> For this there is the HISTORY document in the "openpkg" package
> source tree. It lists all releases of "openpkg" together with a small
> description what happended. We use this as our reference for "openpkg"
> dependencies.
Cough. ... Cough. ... May i step in, here ? I do not depend on it, but
could you find a better place to flag contributions than just the CVS log ?
Just for psychological reasons... I'm sure i'll feel better, even when you
only do it for people who _need_ it.
Some day, maybe, all the logs are lost.
When you have trouble to find a place - just put it into the HISTORY.
Part 1. Part 2:
It would be great, when you could put some "markers" in the HISTORY. E.g.
Contributors : "From now on you should require this version !". Just to
take some burden from the contributors.
> > And what about documenting the package options under the %description part ?
>
> Hmmm... do they really need documentation? I mean, they can be listed
> with "rpm -qpi" (for source and binary RPMs), or "rpm -qi" (for
> installed packages) and unless there names are not too crazy I have
> though they are more or less clear. But perhaps you're right and this
> is only clear to me ;_) and not clear too the all. How should this
> documentation look like?
Yes. That is the old "insider" problem. _I_, for example, had the very
bad habbit to flag some things with "you know...". When i arrived there,
a few months later this was the _only_ sign, that _i_ had something to
with it. Else i would have asked "_who_ the f*** wrote this bullshit".
Can you remember ? I had quite some problems to understand, what the
"with_gcc" option means in the gcc package.
To the question "How should this documentation look like", i'd say:
- When you can explain it in a few words (4-5 lines ?) place the words
just into the %description
- Else set up a place in the WWW and point to it.
Example:
This package does this and that. You will really enjoy it, beliefe me.
There are some compile time options:
pkg::bla_fasel : this option does this and that....
pkg::blubb_fasel: Look at the page "http:/deeper/explanation" for more
informations.
(mk)
--
Matthias Kurz; Fuldastr. 3; D-28199 Bremen; VOICE +49 421 53 600 47
>> Im pr�motorischen Cortex kann jeder ein Held sein. (bdw) <<
______________________________________________________________________
The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org
Developer Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
