Re: [Easyh10-devel] EasyH10 packaging ambiguity

[Benjamin S. <ast...@dl...>]

ny...@us... wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>As we are preparing EasyH10 1.0 RC, it's a good occasion to discuss the
>packaging ambiguity.
>
>Do you think we should include an HTML manual into the binary distribution
>or not? The HTML manual will be the copy of the web pages. I don't think
>we need it because: we already have manpage; HTML pages in /usr/share are
>seldom referred; the manual (with PNG images) will be larger than the
>binary; and most computers running on Linux have the Internet connection.
>
>  
>

I think that most distributions will use the source package to create
their own binary package, and if someone downloads a binary distribution
from SF they have the net. Another possibility would be to create a -doc
package, so you have source+doc, doc and binary. Up to you.

>Another question. Where is the most suitable location to put README,
>COPYING, AUTHORS, INSTALL, etc?
>a) /usr/share/easyh10/doc
>b) /usr/share/doc
>c) Nowhere (do not install these files)
>I saw a Gentoo Linux user who is going to install these files into b). 
>http://www.misticriver.net/showthread.php?t=29501
>
>  
>
Debian policy mandates /usr/share/doc/<package-name>, but that's handled
by my install scripts anyway.

>EasyH10 is now becomming a bit famous among linux distributions. I know
>it's up to the maintainers and distributions, but IMHO the project should
>avoid the chaotic situation beforehand by showing the standard in
>Makefile.am.
>  
>
Check if autoconf/make has a default, if so, use it, I think there's a
flag for it for my packages to override it when they build

>Best regards,
>Nyaochi
>
>
>  
>
Cheers,
Benjamin