Re: documentation which is now officially listed as 'stalled'
Adam Di Carlo <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> In article <email@example.com>, Ardo van Rangelrooij <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Why don't we follow the same approach as with the Debian Policy
> > Manual, i.e. a team of maintainers?
> Ugh! Perhaps. Debian Policy has a whole process in place. I don't
> think we need that. I think we just need a two-pager document
> (Oliver!) with guidelines. Oliver's CVS page already does much of the
> work. We just need to extend/sgml'ify that and we're good. Also see
> recent conversations between me and Jay.
Ok. We certainly don't need to make more out of it than necessary, so
this looks fine to me.
> > Talking about architecture: How are things in the Debian Meta
> > Documentation Data world?
> Ugh! Maybe if I lived in the Netherlands I would have the time to get
> it done. Seriously, I'm getting seriously pumped about it recently;
> I've also started coding. However, I have to have to get the
> Installation Manual in shape, which is top priority. So until that is
> done there's not much time for me.
> Marcus was coming back into it, too.
Ok. I was just asking about it to found out when to expect the need
for the URN based references in debiandoc-sgml.
> > It's no problem to keep the DDP CVS instance up to date. It'll just
> > be another upload.
> You mean another download (of the document sources into the
> debiandoc-sgml pacakge area) ?
Well, I ment keeping the DDP CVS instance and my local CVS instance in
sync, hence "upload" (i.e. my local instance would be leading, but
read below for having it the other way around :-).
> Would it be easier to split the source packages, so that you have the
> DTD and formatting system on the one hand, and the markup manual in a
> separate package? Then you could maintain the whole markup manual
> source package out of DDP CVS (which is what I do for the developer's
> reference). I know this creates another package...
Actually, this is not a bad idea. This also allows more knowledgable
people to edit the document for bad English grammar and such. I would
say we go for it.
> Hmmm. What I would really need is just a tarball of the relevant
> material. Let me take a look at your source pkg.... Hmm. I guess
> we'd just want debiandoc-sgml.sgml and then whip up a makefile for it
> too (see other areas of the DDP cvs area for info). If you wanted the
> CVS history of debiandoc-sgml.sgml preserved, we could copy your
> current debiandoc-sgml.sgml,v file into the right dir of the cvs area;
> otherwise we just import it.
After the next version of the package I'll work on this and come back
Ardo van Rangelrooij
home email: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
home page: http://www.tip.nl/users/ardo.van.rangelrooij
PGP fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9