Re: Planning to split doc-rfc
On 2001-02-24, Kai Henningsen <kaih@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
> DRAFT STANDARDS doc-rfc-draft-std
Maybe make that doc-rfc-std-draft.
> PROPOSED STANDARDS doc-rfc-proposed-std
And that doc-rfc-std-proposed.
> STANDARDS doc-rfc-standard
Then this should probably be doc-rfc-std? That way, you don't break the
alphabetical ordering and at least have the std packages together.
> EXPERIMENTAL doc-rfc-experimental
> HISTORIC doc-rfc-historic
> - doc-rfc-misc
> Comments? Better names? Should there be a dummy doc-rfc package to
> pull in the others?
IMHO, it's a good thing to have one rfc-meta-package to pull them all
in. What's a user supposed to do when [s]he's told to RTFRFC?
--
Andreas Fuchs, <asf@acm.org>, <d96001@htlwrn.ac.at>, antifuchs
Hail RMS! Hail Cthulhu! Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!
Reply to: