Robots binary package

[Robert Collins]

My impression has been that a README in that location was required
(since that thread occured), which is why it is listed as required in
setup.html.

I don't particularly care either way , but I think that _consistency_ is
a very good idea, and that we should either bitbucket all those readme's
(remember there is still /usr/doc/pkg-version/ ) or make it mandatory.

And if we get rid of the README's, then a basic man page should be
mandatory.

Rob

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>
To: <cygwin-apps@cygwin.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 5:10 AM
Subject: Re: Robots binary package


> On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 10:48:29AM -0500, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> >>  Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 09:52:25 -0500
> >>  From: Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd@yahoo.com>
> >>
> >>  Your reference doesn't say that _ALL_ packages need a README.
> >
> >Quoting from <URL:http://cygwin.com/setup.html#package_contents>:
> >
> >  In your binary package, include a file
> >  /usr/doc/Cygwin/foo-vendor-suffix.README containing (at a minimum)
> >  the information needed for an end user to recreate the package.
This
> >  includes CFLAGS settings, configure parameters, etc.
>
> I've never thought about this before but it makes no sense to me to
have
> rebuild instructions in the binary package.  That's just cluttering up
> the disk space for 99% of the people who install the package.
>
> I could see the need for some kind of description about what the
package
> is, but even there, I think that a man page would suffice.  I agree
with
> Corinna that there should be no absolute need for a README.
>
> Of course, I would say that because none of my packages have READMEs
> either...
>
> cgf
>