Wine FAQ removed from the doc tarballs

Hiji hijinio at
Fri Mar 18 12:14:07 CST 2005

--- "Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun at> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:04:08PM +0100, Francois
> Gouget wrote:
> > But I don't see any reason not to put it in
> wine-doc-html.tar.gz or 
> > wine-doc-txt.tar.gz. The idea of these tar files
> is so that one can get 
> > all the Wine documentation with just one download
> and the FAQ is part of 
> > the documentation.
> Yes, but I can not possibly see why would anyone
> want to download and
> read the FAQ like this. A FAQ is essentially a Web
> type of document,
> best view and browsed on the Web. By including it in
> those packages,
> we just make them bigger for 99.99% of the users
> that don't care
> about the FAQ, and those users are probably the ones
> that have most
> bandwidth restrictions anyway.
> But I'm not totally against it being there, if
> people feel strongly
> that we must, I'll go with the flow.

As a web developer (and Wine user), I feel inclined to
believe that all major documentation should be removed
from the source.  A README file pointing the user to
the web site for the latest documentation would be
most efficient and beneficial.

Basically, by doing this, users will begin realizing
that if they want documentation, WineHQ is the place
to go.  In a sense, it is streamlining information. 
Not only does this reduce user confusion, but it also
minimizes the propagation of old documentation which
no one will have the power to update.  By not
consolidating the documentation resource, there will
eventually be a certain percentage of the Wine
userbase trying to follow outdated Wine documents.


Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! 

More information about the wine-devel mailing list