if such a great program like krpmbuilder should be really aimed at sysadmins who need not know how to build RPMpackages manually there should be a really satisfying documentation.
It seems as if the kind of sysadmin I just have mentioned is really the one for whom this program was written, because the documentation especially the one which is shown in the left window of the wizard (although a VERY good idea!), seems to assume that the user has *the intelligence of a potatoe* ;-) (words from the splendid documentation of LyX, which avoids this well known problem in the Linux world).
The usual case with a lot of Linux programs: There are detailed descriptions of buttons which have a well known global meaning, other *descriptions* like *Configure options* where the description mereley changes the order of words, but -- it is a pity -- not the slightest hint where to look up e.g. the declaration ot %{_tmppath} or %{name}. Not the meaning but the location (or configuration file) where these things are defined, E.g if someone wants to build the RPM of vim, there will be no success since the directory created after unpacking is vim70 and not vim-7.0 which appears in the tgz-File. Building LyX-RPMs on the other hand is very easy.
krpmbuilder is a splendid program, no doubt. But without a documentation no software should have a version number less than 1.0 because this means that the software is at a first stage which can be called ready. But without a documentation a program is never ready (IMHO the torso, although a well meant, should not be mentioned on the page since it is only of little use in that stage because of its redundancies). I know by my own that it is a very hard thing to write a documentation which is of practical use. But it should be always kept in mind what Linus Torvald said about that problem, since we all profit from that people who started the whole thing.
Dear list,
if such a great program like krpmbuilder should be really aimed at sysadmins who need not know how to build RPMpackages manually there should be a really satisfying documentation.
It seems as if the kind of sysadmin I just have mentioned is really the one for whom this program was written, because the documentation especially the one which is shown in the left window of the wizard (although a VERY good idea!), seems to assume that the user has *the intelligence of a potatoe* ;-) (words from the splendid documentation of LyX, which avoids this well known problem in the Linux world).
The usual case with a lot of Linux programs: There are detailed descriptions of buttons which have a well known global meaning, other *descriptions* like *Configure options* where the description mereley changes the order of words, but -- it is a pity -- not the slightest hint where to look up e.g. the declaration ot %{_tmppath} or %{name}. Not the meaning but the location (or configuration file) where these things are defined, E.g if someone wants to build the RPM of vim, there will be no success since the directory created after unpacking is vim70 and not vim-7.0 which appears in the tgz-File. Building LyX-RPMs on the other hand is very easy.
krpmbuilder is a splendid program, no doubt. But without a documentation no software should have a version number less than 1.0 because this means that the software is at a first stage which can be called ready. But without a documentation a program is never ready (IMHO the torso, although a well meant, should not be mentioned on the page since it is only of little use in that stage because of its redundancies). I know by my own that it is a very hard thing to write a documentation which is of practical use. But it should be always kept in mind what Linus Torvald said about that problem, since we all profit from that people who started the whole thing.
Best regards
Heiko Schroeder
Praha
http://www.od.shuttle.de/evb-1
Sorry, there is a mistake: I should have said: A software without a documentation *should* have a version number less than 1.0.
Sorry for that booboo.
Heiko Schroeder