Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] www.mingw.org pages added

[Keith M. <kei...@us...>]

On 04/05/12 15:48, Keith Marshall wrote:
> On 03/05/12 14:00, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Earnie Boyd
>> <ea...@us...> wrote:
>>> I've been adding pages to MinGW.org indexed in a block on the right
>>> titled "What Can You Do for MinGW?"  I would like feedback for the
>>> content in those pages.
>>
>> Ping.  Anyone?
> 
> I had a couple of observations, but I'll have to get back to you with them.

Apologies for the delay in getting back to this.  One of my observations
related equally to two pages, and was trivial:

* On each of the "Drupal Administration" and the "Content
  Administration" pages, you had said:

  "We have need of someone(s) ..."

  That's a grammatical faux-pas, since someone is strictly
  singular.  I've gone ahead, and removed the offending "(s)",
  in both cases.

Beyond that, I had just one other issue:

* On the "Software Package Contribution" page, I see:

  "... all packages should meet the guidelines of mgwport and
  have the xml data required for mingw-get to install it."

I wasn't aware that we had agreed this, as a matter of policy.  I
have no issue with the requirement for all contributed packages to
be installable via mingw-get, but I *do* continue to have *serious*
reservations about the packaging conventions imposed by mgwport; I,
for one, will *not* be adopting mgwport any time soon.

I have given my reasons previously, and have yet to see a convincing
counter argument.  Indeed, Chris' adoption of mgwport for his most
recent binutils package created a major headache for me, when I had
recent occasion to run our GCC-3.4.5 cross-compiler build script, after
I had installed a new hard drive, and a new version of LinuxMint on my
current laptop.  To circumvent it, I had to completely rebuild the
binutils package locally, to correct the defective mgwport imposed
structure, (which quite simply caused the build script to choke).

-- 
Regards,
Keith.