[g-b-s patch] Re: Trial plotutils packages again

[Charles Wilson]

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Charles Wilson wrote:
> 
> 
>>>According to Charles Wilson on 10/12/2005 10:09 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Within the README file
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>[t]here's no need to list...
>>>>
>>>>exactly which files are included within each of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>... the tarballs; in fact it's actually discouraged (because it always
>>>>>ends up getting out of date).
>>>
>>>Actually, the generic-build-script template recommends this.  Are you
>>>proposing changing the template?
>>
>>Huh?  I thought for sure I saw something to the effect of my statement
>>on the mailing list...
>>
>>Ah, here it is:
>>http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2005-05/msg00198.html
>>
>>But my memory was faulty; no conclusion was reached in that thread.
> 
> 
> Exactly.  So I'm asking again: *is* this the consensus?  If so, I'll
> remove that section from the readme template.
> 

I consense: pkg listings should be removed from generic-README...

> 
>>>Maybe the patch should be tweaked to recommend "cygcheck -l $PKG"
>>>instead of the current recommendation of an explicit list that is
>>>likely to get out of date.
>>
>>Yes, that's a pretty good idea.
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Eric, if you plan to tweak the above patch, you should probably
> also mention <http://cygwin.com/packages/> as the place to get package
> content listings.

...with OR without the addition of a recommendation to use cygcheck -l 
or /packages/.  Just so I can stop hand editing those stupid lists. :-)

--
Chuck