[pmwiki-users] Re: Root README.txt With a docs/ Directory

[H. Fox]

On 12/29/05, Neil Herber <nospam at eton.ca> wrote:
> At 2005-12-30  02:06 AM +0100, christian.ridderstrom at gmail.com is
> rumored to have said:
> >On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Neil Herber wrote:
> >
> > > At 2005-12-30  01:49 AM +0100, christian.ridderstrom at gmail.com is
> > > rumored to have said:
> > > >Do we even need it? Surely the most inept administrator should be able to
> > > >follow something like the following from README:
> > > >
> > > >         For installation instructions, see
> > > >                 http://pmwiki.org/wiki/InstallationInstructions
> > >
> > > When testing and installing new software, I often do it on a machine
> > > that is not connected to the net (can't be too sure what it might
> > > do!!) so I find it supremely annoying to have a readme send me
> > > off to the web.

Same here.

I suppose you're right; self-contained documentation should be
adequate, even if only to get you started.  This has implications for
an INSTALL.txt file but, as Pm noted previously, the basic
instructions haven't changed for a while.

> > > However, I don't mind something like: "To install this software, do
> > > this  .... blah blah blah   .... For the most up to date instructions
> > > please see http://pmwiki.org/wiki/InstallationInstructions "

That's probably about right, then.

> My point is simply if I am testing stuff on an
> air-gapped machine, I can't easily look at an online page.
>
> As long as the readme file is readable locally, it doesn't matter to
> me how it is generated. However, I would expect to find a readme at
> the top level of the install directory -  not buried in some folder
> like wikilib.d/. Having it in wikilib.d/ implies that I need PmWiki
> up and running to read it, which presents an interesting bootstrap challenge.
>
> I am coming into this discussion late, so I hope I am not off topic.

Not at all.  You brought up an important point about non-connected
installations.

Hagan

> Neil