[fetchmail-devel] Re: Can this stuff be removed?

[Graham W. <bo...@de...>]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 04:02:40PM -0400, Rob Funk wrote:
> I'd be in favor of making a subdirectory for the web stuff though.  I need 
> to look at the index generatorscript to see how much we need to change 
> anyway.

Sounds fine. Would the webpage stuff be released in tarballs?

On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 04:02:40PM -0400, Rob Funk wrote:
> Graham Wilson wrote:
> > I think we should move the testing scripts (torturetest.* and test*)
> > should be moved to dist-tools/test/.
> >
> > The other scripts that esr used (getstats.py, growthplot, indexgen.sh,
> > listsize, makerelease, timeplot, timeseries, upload, and uploadfaq that
> > I can see) should be moved to dist-tools/.
> 
> Sounds good to me.  Paths will probably need to be changed in them though.
> (Some need even more work than that.)

Should I just move stuff now, and we can fix the scripts up as we use
them, or the other way around?

> I believe bighand.png is intended as the web page logo, so that should be 
> kept.

Alright, let's remember to put it in the web directory.

> I'm fine with dropping funny.html if nobody wants it in the new web page.  
> We might want to wait until we have such a web page built before actually 
> getting rid of it though.

I'd say let's just create a 'www' or 'web' subdirectory in the trunk
now, and move the current stuff into it. We can then decide about
'funny.html' later.

> If the libntlm and mime64 contents are not used in the actual fetchmail 
> code, we can probably get rid of them.  On the other hand, README.NTLM 
> seems to go with the copies of the libntlm files that we're actually 
> distributing, so should probably stay.

I figured we could delete README.NTLM along with libntlm. README.NTLM
was distributed with tarballs, whereas libtlm wasn't, at least that I
can tell.

> OPTIONS seems to belong in some sort of historical archive.

Unless we plan on using it, I think we should delete it. Should we need
it, the file will always be in the older version on version control.

> RFC/ could go in a document archive area (alongside OPTIONS?), or could be 
> considered redundant.  If deleted, I'd prefer to replace it with an HTML 
> file of links to canonical locations of the same documents.

I would think we could just get rid of it outright; I doesn't seem that
esr ever shipped it with tarballs, but rather only had it around for
personal use.

> Isn't rh-config/ necessary for building the rpm?

I wouldn't know. :)

-- 
gram