Re: Directory structure
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> Well, sure, you convinced me that the documentation could be better,
> but not that the scheme *must* be changed. And I already knew that
> the documentation needs to be better.
You've got to choose:
either the current scheme with _lots_ of explaning docs,
or a more intuitive scheme which doesn't require "any" docs at all.
("any": my very small xREADME.txt "explains it all")
>
> Keep in mind that if we change the scheme that will suck up at least a
> week and prevent other bugs from being fixed or delay release.
To be honest, I would _encourage_ delaying the release by 1 to 2 weeks if it
makes first-user experiences _way_ better. With the current structure I'm
really hoping that all of our many reviewers can boot from CD, because they
will have a terrible time doing it any other way. I don't like bad press.
> Also, have you guys read the top-level README ? It doesn't seem that
> you have.
Hmmm... I use http to get to ftp.us.d.o, but it doesn't show up the README.
Weird.
Okay, a nice start. But it still doesn't explain which files (exactly!) to get
from where (exactly!) for what purpose (exactly!) and why (exactly!). For
example that rawrite2 is in dosutils/, and that you have to use
..\..\dosutils\rawrite2 if you use a "standard" root.bin, but
..\..\..\dosutils\rawrite2 if you use "compact". Something this small is easy
for us experienced users to understand, but so frustrating to newbies that
they go to Red Hat or SuSE instead. I don't like that either.
Regards,
Anne Bezemer
Reply to: