[RFU 1.7] nasm-2.06-1

[Dean Scarff]

Dave Korn wrote:
[...]
>>>  - should setup.hint have requires: cygwin?  nasm's does.
>
>  No, that's now an obsolete practice, it should be removed.  See e.g.:
>
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2009-06/msg00145.html

In that case:

http://scarff.id.au/file/cygwin/nasm/setup.hint

>>>  - should it be /usr/share/doc/nasm or /usr/share/doc/nasm-2.06? nasm's
>>>    is the former
>> 
>> Every package seems to have its own idea how to name the doc dir.  It's
>> not *that* important.  I guess the better approach is to omit the
>> version.  After all, you usually have just one of the packages installed
>> and the user doesn't exactly care for the actual version of the package
>> when looking for the docs.
>
>  Omitting the version number is the new convention; see the thread: "[RFC]
> 1.7 Packaging: Documentation":
>
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2008-08/threads.html#00081

Thanks for the references, guess I didn't search hard enough. ;)

Not sure whether there's a "setup2.html" in reserve, but when the time
comes, I've attached a patch for setup.html for these two issues.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cygwin-setup-new-conventions.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 3371 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-apps/attachments/20090701/1989447f/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------

-- 
Dean