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

[Rob F. <rf...@fu...>]

Graham Wilson wrote:
> Would the webpage stuff be released in tarballs?

I wouldn't think so.

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

I think it's fine to move stuff first.

> > 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.

Err, I'm confused here.  README.NTLM was distributed.  libntlm files were 
distributed (not in the libntlm directory).  Why delete README.NTLM?

> > 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.

True.

> > 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.

Actually he did at one point ship RFCs, though there was never any point in 
putting them in version control.

Anyway, I think there's value in tracking which RFCs are relevant, even if 
we don't keep the text of them ourselves.

> > Isn't rh-config/ necessary for building the rpm?
>
> I wouldn't know. :)

Me either.

-- 
==============================| "A slice of life isn't the whole cake
 Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> | One tooth will never make a full grin"
 http://www.funknet.net/rfunk |    -- Chris Mars, "Stuck in Rewind"