Re: GPL'ed OCR software

["Robert G. Brown" <bob@xxxxxxx>]

>>>>2. The packaging stinks. This is actually good, because this guy is paying
>>>>   lots of attention to the core content, not all the froo-furrah. Later he
>>>>   can get fancy.
>>>Not sure what you mean by this?  It's a single binary, what packaging
>>>would he need.
>>No man pages, the configure and makefile could be better. still using tar
>>(not rpm), and the documentation is kind of sparse. Not a lasting black mark,
>>but as this grows more parameters, that will become nessesary. Also, it is
>>early life cycle stuff, this sort of thing should come (perhaps properly)
>>later on.
>If they used RPM instead of tar, then the discussion of configure scripts,
>makefiles, packaging, and compiling becomes meaningless.

They'll probably get around to it, or someone else will. The software is 
new enough that the packaging issues are not at the top of the developers
agenda yet. Of course, if someone else volunteered to step forward and
create an RPM....


                                                              Regards,
                                                              ---> RGB <---