Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago
All three options presented on download.html are supposed to work:
- distro pkg
- hackage
- darcs get / tar.gz snapshot
"cabal install http://code.haskell.org/xmonad/xmonad.tar.gz" is just there for
people that have trouble installing darcs (such as archlinux currently), but
for whatever reason would like to run the development version.
We can remove "cabal install http://code.haskell.org/xmonad/xmonad.tar.gz" (PR
https://github.com/davidlazar/xmonad.org), but that still leaves people the
choice between using a release or using the bleeding edge.
Original comment by vogt.a...@gmail.com
on 13 Apr 2015 at 5:16
Having different ways of installing is great. There is just a little confusing
inconsistency going on. And I actually wasn't super clear in my bug.
Let me clarify. Background: http://xmonad.org/download.html is where users are
funneled from the main page, it appears to overview the install methods, and
leads users on to http://xmonad.org/intro.html which appears to be the
complete documentation on install.
1. download.html says "After you've downloaded, follow the install instructions
(link to intro.html)", then on intro.html, the tarbal you downloaded is never
mentioned. So either remove the mention of downloading manually from hackage,
or have an instruction which involves xmonad-<version>.tar.gz on intro.html. I
still don't know how you would install the tarball. cabal install
xmonad-<version>.tar.gz? The download link on hackage is not the easiest to
find (at the bottom of the page), so I'd prefer steering people to the simpler
cabal install <name> method.
2. intro.html should mention the "cabal install
http://code.haskell.org/xmonad/xmonad.tar.gz" method which was first mentioned
on the download.html page or else it's confusing (this first page said I could
do this, and now this other page looks like it's meant to cover everything, but
it doesn't say I can do this).
If this makes sense, I can write a patch and do a PR on github.
Original comment by Ian...@gmail.com
on 14 Apr 2015 at 9:49
I would say go ahead and make a pull request. Personally I think it makes more
sense to add information to both pages as appropriate to make them consistent
than it does to remove information from either.
Original comment by daniel.w...@gmail.com
on 19 Apr 2015 at 10:32
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
Ian...@gmail.com
on 11 Apr 2015 at 7:57