Re: Ghostscript packaging for X11, non-X11 versions

Re: Ghostscript packaging for X11, non-X11 versions

[Dario Alcocer]

On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 06:08:46AM +0100, John Morrison wrote:
> > As a maintainer, I'd rather provide the user with the complete package.
> > If the original software includes documentation, then in my opinion
> > the package I produce won't be complete unless I include the original
> > documentation.
> 
> My only point is that you aren't producing *one* package.  If you were
> coding two classes you _would_ factor out common code into a seperate
> base class/included/hidden/internal/.../common entity.

Yes, good point.

> > In my opinion, distributing software without documentation is like
> > selling hardware without manuals.  Sure, you can *still* use it, but
> > it's really a pain to download the documentation if you'd like explore
> > additional features or configurations.
> 
> I object to the fact that you think I suggested that you dont 
> distribute the documentation - I *NEVER* suggested that you don't.

Yes, you're quite right, my mistake.  You did say put the documentation
in a separate package, not leave it out.

> Sometimes it's nice to be able to download the documentation without
> having to install the software then you can check it does x, y, z
> without having to clutter your harddrive.

That may be so, but what's more likely is that a casual new user will
only install the minimum required, and then ask simple questions that
would be answered by 5 minutes of reading the documentation.  I say this
because this scenario plays itself out constantly on this list :-)
Making the documentation not "optional" hopefully will prod them into
reading before demanding answers on the list ;-)

> At the end of the day - it was just a suggestion to *help* you
> factor out commonality.  Sorry you disliked it so.

That's OK, no need to say sorry, I really didn't dislike the suggestion
at all, I was just trying to explain my rationale.  I think I've got a
few more years before I become another BOFH :-) ...

Thanks for the input.

-- 
Dario Alcocer -- Sr. Software Developer, Helix Digital Inc.
alcocer@helixdigital.com -- http://www.helixdigital.com

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Ghostscript packaging for X11, non-X11 versions

[Christopher Faylor]

Someday, I'm sure that I'll understand why people insist on redirecting
cygwin-apps discussions to cygwin.

Anyway, I'm redirecting this back to the correct mailing list.

cgf

On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 09:31:30AM -0700, Dario Alcocer wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 06:08:46AM +0100, John Morrison wrote:
>> > As a maintainer, I'd rather provide the user with the complete package.
>> > If the original software includes documentation, then in my opinion
>> > the package I produce won't be complete unless I include the original
>> > documentation.
>> 
>> My only point is that you aren't producing *one* package.  If you were
>> coding two classes you _would_ factor out common code into a seperate
>> base class/included/hidden/internal/.../common entity.
>
>Yes, good point.
>
>> > In my opinion, distributing software without documentation is like
>> > selling hardware without manuals.  Sure, you can *still* use it, but
>> > it's really a pain to download the documentation if you'd like explore
>> > additional features or configurations.
>> 
>> I object to the fact that you think I suggested that you dont 
>> distribute the documentation - I *NEVER* suggested that you don't.
>
>Yes, you're quite right, my mistake.  You did say put the documentation
>in a separate package, not leave it out.
>
>> Sometimes it's nice to be able to download the documentation without
>> having to install the software then you can check it does x, y, z
>> without having to clutter your harddrive.
>
>That may be so, but what's more likely is that a casual new user will
>only install the minimum required, and then ask simple questions that
>would be answered by 5 minutes of reading the documentation.  I say this
>because this scenario plays itself out constantly on this list :-)
>Making the documentation not "optional" hopefully will prod them into
>reading before demanding answers on the list ;-)
>
>> At the end of the day - it was just a suggestion to *help* you
>> factor out commonality.  Sorry you disliked it so.
>
>That's OK, no need to say sorry, I really didn't dislike the suggestion
>at all, I was just trying to explain my rationale.  I think I've got a
>few more years before I become another BOFH :-) ...
>
>Thanks for the input.
>
>-- 
>Dario Alcocer -- Sr. Software Developer, Helix Digital Inc.
>alcocer@helixdigital.com -- http://www.helixdigital.com
>
>--
>Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
>Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
>FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: list name - Was - Ghostscript packaging for X11, non-X11 versions

[Jon LaBadie]

On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 01:07:57PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Someday, I'm sure that I'll understand why people insist on redirecting
> cygwin-apps discussions to cygwin.
> 

Maybe "cygwin" sounds sufficiently generic to appear to cover all cygwin areas.
If it were renamed cygwin-dll or cygwin-base or somesuch, then a poster would
not have a generic mailing list to select and might consider the appropriate list.

-- 
Jon H. LaBadie                  jcyg@jgcomp.com
 JG Computing
 4455 Province Line Road        (609) 252-0159
 Princeton, NJ  08540-4322      (609) 683-7220 (fax)

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: list name - Was - Ghostscript packaging for X11, non-X11 versions

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 04:01:54PM -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 01:07:57PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Someday, I'm sure that I'll understand why people insist on redirecting
>>cygwin-apps discussions to cygwin.
>
>Maybe "cygwin" sounds sufficiently generic to appear to cover all
>cygwin areas.  If it were renamed cygwin-dll or cygwin-base or
>somesuch, then a poster would not have a generic mailing list to select
>and might consider the appropriate list.

The mental gymnastics required to make assumptions like this would
really be something.

You're following a discussion that is moving along nicely in cygwin-apps
and the brainstorm hits you that this would really be perfect for
*cygwin*, so you redirect it there.  I don't buy it.  That's just rude.

It's more likely that people don't know how to use their mail programs
and end up moving the discussion here by mistake.

Hey!  I know!  Let's talk about Reply-To now!  That's the answer to all
of our problems!

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/