Re: usr/doc/[cC]ygwin requirement

Re: usr/doc/[cC]ygwin requirement

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

"Jérôme-Georges-Michel BENOIT" <JGMBenoit@wanadoo.fr> writes:

>>    usr/doc/Cygwin/texmf-20000804-2.README
>
> my /usr/doc/cygwin is not capitalized,
> hence my remark.

Ah, ok.  I don't think this is of much importance, but
cygwin.com/setup.html says:

    * In your binary package, include a file
      /usr/doc/Cygwin/foo-vendor-suffix.README

Before I went there to check, I tried to look if there was a
convention for this, but strangely enough, none of the packages I
checked had a usr/doc/Cygwin at all (cygwin, bash, gawk, textutils,
ed)?.

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org

Re: usr/doc/[cC]ygwin requirement

[Charles Wilson]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:


> Ah, ok.  I don't think this is of much importance, but
> cygwin.com/setup.html says:
> 
>     * In your binary package, include a file
>       /usr/doc/Cygwin/foo-vendor-suffix.README
> 
> Before I went there to check, I tried to look if there was a
> convention for this, but strangely enough, none of the packages I
> checked had a usr/doc/Cygwin at all (cygwin, bash, gawk, textutils,
> ed)?.

Most of the packages you listed pre-date the /usr/doc/Cygwin 
requirement.  In an ideal world, the next release of each would then 
follow this new requirement -- but this isn't an ideal world. :-P *New* 
packages, however, should follow this convention -- and tetex probably 
should, as well, even though it isn't exactly new.  Whgy?  Because from 
this outsider's perspective, it sure seems like tetex needs lots of 
tweaking and TLC to build on Cygwin -- and those tweaks should be 
documented...

--Chuck