Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!bin
From: bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: imake documentation woes
Message-ID: <2816@uakari.primate.wisc.edu>
Date: 25 Jul 90 05:10:28 GMT
References: <595@servio.UUCP>
Sender: bin@primate.wisc.edu
Reply-To: bin@primate.wisc.edu
Lines: 23

From article <595@servio.UUCP>, by marcs@servio.UUCP (Marc San Soucie):
>> What do *you* want to see it contain?
> 
> 1) A problem statement.
> 
>     What is the problem that Imake purports to solve, that isn't solved by
>     other tools? Show some examples of those problems, using the other tools.
>     Why is Imake a good solution to those problems?

Marc, thanks for your suggestions.  Re: #1 above, what other tools are you
thinking of, with which imake should be compared?

Also, I'm not sure that to fill the gaps in imake documentation that it's
as important to *justify* imake as to *explain* it.  There may be other tools
that work better, but since imake is in fact what X is configured with,
that's what we have to work with, that's what needs to be described.

Of course (thinking out loud here...), on the other hand, such a
justification might be useful insofar as it would demonstrate why
someone might want to use imake for something *other* than X... hmm...

Paul DuBois
dubois@primate.wisc.edu