"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
If you're not going to update it, Norbert, submit a patch to kill
I think that is sufficiently important documentation that it should be
discussed, but when you and Ville both say it's out-of-date and
redundant, I don't think there will be much objection.
If you think, it's valuable to have this file around, I simply bring
it up to date and keep it in sync, no big deal.
I only seconded the notion about the too many places to look for (and
update) the same kind of information.
viteno> I think packages.texi should be handled alike.
I disagree. I think the documentation should go into the packages.
This is true. I was only referring to the "when" of updating the
information. IMO it's sufficient to update this file after official
releases that contain new packages (eg hyperbole last time and
oo-browser next time). It's not necessary to put new packages right
in when they get first pre-released. YMMV.
Also, ISTR texinfo has a texi2txt option. We should texinfo-ize
INSTALL, README etc and use that to generate it. It doesn't really
matter how ugly, right, as long as <xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org> comes
through clearly. ;-)
What would you suggest? Add a texi directory to the package tree top
and put all this stuff in there? Would you like the generated files,
ie the text versions also keep in CVS?