Re: TODO

[Petr M. <mi...@ph...>]

> > version, but the distributors won't necessarily know which files these
> > are. I would *hope* they at least think to install the demo files, but
> > they may not know to first run 'make' in the demo directory to generate
> > binary data files.

Yes, if there is no "make" option to install all files *we* think should
belong to a complete gnuplot distribution, then we can expect every linux
distribution and will be different. Why somebody else should know whether
e.g. tutorial is useful for users or not?

> They don't have to --- running 'make' in the main directory is perfectly
> sufficient.  If they don't know how to build a fully autoconf/automake
> wrapped package like gnuplot, they're in the wrong business pretending to
> be a Linux distributor anyway.

No, "make install" is not sufficient. For example, compares its result to
that of my binary releases. There is no such "make install blabla" I guess.

> > The pm3d/contrib directory?

Hmm I would also like to know how to organize them better -- or put to web?
I thought gnuplot could be distributed with a library of useful scripts, but
nobody has proposed such a structure.

> > The old README.* files?

Should be merged with gnuplot.doc and INSTALL, or to web.

I've done this for OS/2-related documentation and some others. Maybe someone
could continue with other files? Some info (like from 3D data) would be much
more useful to be in gnuplot.doc.

> > The tutorial?

I've upgraded it for 4.0.

> If we want to give them a hand explaining them what we would like them
> to put in their binary packages --- fine, add a paragraph to INSTALL
> about that.

make completeinstall  ??

> OTOH, why should we expect them to put stuff in there that our
> own 'make install' doesn't put up anywhere?

Exactly.

---
PM