Re: Here's my Mac doc diff
On Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 08:03:52PM -0400, Russell Hires wrote:
>
>
>
> > But one thing I always wonder about, did you mac guys actually test the
> > potato installation?
>
> I'll be brave and say, no, I don't think I tested it according to what you
> have on your ftp site. I know I used a 2.2 base I got from somewhere that
I just wanted to know why the descriptions allways differed from my view of
it.
> > There are some things which (all of) you describe,
> > which are obviously wrong (ie resc1440.bin is no more, its rescue.bin), at
> > least as far as I can tell from my Amiga experiance.
> > And one more thing, please don't forget that this is ment as a
> > _quickinstall_, please lets keep this text short.
>
> These instructions are pretty detailed for being "quick"! I'm very surprised
> to find out they are supposed to be "quick" and that there are even more
> detailed instructions somewhere...
There is a doc subdirectory in the official disks-m68k directory, guess what
it contains?
In fact, it should contain the only reliable docs for potato, unfortunately
no m68k developer had time to contribute to it, no user yet dared to do
something. In the long run, the quickinstall should go away, but as it
seems, everybody is only reading whats in "his" subdirectory, so maybe the
best solution would be to first give a pointer to the real docs and just
have a very short doc of absolutely necessary things to get it going for
<subarch>. And incorporate the m68k specialities into the "real" docs.
But as a few people allready spent considerably time on the "quickinstall",
I am not going to delete that, just thinking of a possible future.
If people don't overdue it (ie the size of the docs does not increase
significantly anymore) we will get thorugh with our quickinstall. But still
people should think about contributing to the "real" docs. AFAIK here only
the m68k specifics need to be updated, the standard installation, which is
identical for all arches in nearly all points, is allready described in
detail. But I am repeating myself, maybe it helps...
Christian
Reply to: