[Freedos-devel] freedos package spec problem: sources, binary, docs

2006-08-27 Thread Eric Auer
Hi all, Blair pointed me to the fact that source packages are not supposed to contain docs, according to our specs. I object that recommendation. In my opinion, source packages should contain everything outside the bin directory, and binary packages should contain everything outside the source

Re: [Freedos-devel] freedos package spec problem: sources, binary, docs

2006-08-27 Thread Jim Hall
I think you are referring to this mini-HOWTO: http://fd-doc.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?n=FdDocEn.Distribution Yes, I agree that the source package should contain everything short of the generated binaries. If there are dupe files, let them be overwritten. This mini-HOWTO needs to be

Re: [Freedos-devel] freedos package spec problem: sources, binary, docs

2006-08-27 Thread Aitor Santamaría
Two small notes: (1) The HELP file (for FASTHELP) is probably NOT required in the source package either (2) There are docs that are very specific to sources (e.g. how to build and such), that I myself usually don't pack under DOC, but under SRC\DOC, so that they are only installed with sources (I

Re: [Freedos-devel] freedos package spec problem: sources, binary, docs

2006-08-27 Thread Blair Campbell
I agree with Aitor. On 8/27/06, Aitor Santamaría [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Two small notes: (1) The HELP file (for FASTHELP) is probably NOT required in the source package either (2) There are docs that are very specific to sources (e.g. how to build and such), that I myself usually don't

[Freedos-devel] freedos package spec problem: sources, binary, docs

2006-08-27 Thread Arkady V.Belousov
Hi! 27-???-2006 23:50 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Auer) wrote to freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net: EA Blair pointed me to the fact that source packages EA are not supposed to contain docs, according to our EA specs. I object that recommendation. In my opinion, EA source packages should contain

Re: [Freedos-devel] freedos package spec problem: sources, binary, docs

2006-08-27 Thread Eric Auer
Hi! Let me disagree. Source package should contain only sources and other files, which not need for program' user (not developer). Binary package shouldn't contain these files. For example, doc/emm386/build.txt should be present only in sources package, but it not need in binary package.

Re: [Freedos-devel] freedos package spec problem: sources, binary, docs

2006-08-27 Thread Aitor Santamaría
Hi, 2006/8/28, Eric Auer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: To bring this in context of our installer: The sources included CDROM could just contain ONE set of FULL packages and selectively skip files in source/ directories at the moment when the packages are unzipped. That would also allow full 8 char file

Re: [Freedos-devel] freedos package spec problem: sources, binary, docs

2006-08-27 Thread Aitor Santamaría
Just another one: perhaps we should think and standarize the HELP (HTML-Help) directories, so that we distribute the HTM with the packages itself, as opposed to submit them to the HTML-Help maintainer, and hope that both programs (mine and HTML-Help) will be distributed together with the sync-ed

Re: [Freedos-devel] freedos package spec problem: sources, binary, docs

2006-08-27 Thread Blair Campbell
I very much like the current spec and would wish to stick to it. I'm not going to go about changing the packaging scheme (especially for the distros). On 8/27/06, Lyrical Nanoha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Arkady V.Belousov wrote: Documentation is need for program using