Re: Release Notes patch
On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 12:57:38AM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> Attached. A unified diff this time against the CVS version of this morning,
> however doesn't really make it much smaller ;-)
Thanks. (it's applied manually mostly, anyway, obviously)
I have applied most of your patch in CVS a couple of days ago, since I was
concerned that it wouldn't get on Test-Cycle-2 CDs if I wasn't quick enough,
but I haven't replied to the message, I didn't have that much time.
> - Removed entire upgrade chapter for powerpc and arm since they don't have
> any upgrading at all.
Good idea... I've now done a similar thing for the Installation Manual's
abstract, where it mentions upgrading.
> - Extended apt setup stuff. I think this is _very_ important for first-time
> apt users, since the manpages aren't quite helpful.
Right. It seemed overly verbose in the UPGRADING document when I revised it
initially, but okay now.
> (And we don't want users to refer to manpages anyway; if we wanted, a
> single reference would be enough for the entire upgrade section ;-)
> -> Please do not delete anything there!
I think I haven't. Do check, maybe I missed something.
> - A great many updates to make the text more readable. Esp. converting the
> "telegram style" (is that english word? stop. ;-) to "normal" text,
> and a few back/forward references to make clear that things were/will be
> discussed already/soon.
Yeah. BTW the stupid initial sentence about apt-cdrom usage was a leftover.
> (Documentation is usually regarded as reflecting the quality of the
> item, so if the docs are lacking words, the item is lacking features ;-)
That perception is flawed, though.
> - Put together the three `hold'-related paragraphs which were separated
> by `su' and `script'; moved those up a bit.
I instead moved them down (I think)... see if this is better.
> Futher details of changes are in <!-- comments -->.
> Also added a lot of comments to point out the intention of that particular
> piece (like in C); those are not meant to be removed.
I have still removed them (or merged with the text, perhaps, can't
remember). This is documentation, so if you need to say something, spell it
out, don't hide it in comments. I have left only the comments that are
kindof to-do items and such.
Also, I think that leaving lowercase command names as first words of
sentences is quite acceptable, considering that these are displayed with a
different, fixed-width font (in formats capable of doing that), and that any
language syntax conformance test success won't help users who won't be able
to run "Apt-get" or similar. I admit that avoiding mentioning programs at
starts of sentences would be good, though. :)
Also, the <author> stuff is aligned to the far right side of the screen with
those slink-compatibility changes, which is ugly, so I've reverted to the
way it was. Sorry. Notice that you can recompile debiandoc-sgml (and its
dependencies) on slink machines easily, if that's any comfort :)
> Oh, and one more thing I just think about now (not in the patch):
> ...using dselect or another visual frontend. In the dselect [S]elect screen,
> ...using dselect or another visual frontend. In dselect, you first have to
> choose `apt' as the [A]ccess method, and [U]pdate dselect's database
> with the new packages information. Then in the [S]elect screen, press...
Ah, I missed this part. (immediately after I got the message, I downloaded
the attachment, read it and started merging :) I'll go commit the change
BTW can you make the static dpkg and apt packages have a lower version
number than the versions in the potato distribution, so that they get
upgraded, otherwise people may be filing bugs against "dpkg 1.6.13" but the
maintainer might not know if it's the static version offhand? Or will APT
upgrade itself and dpkg after noticing md5sum of current package is
Maybe I forgot something, sorry; please read the changes I made and yell if
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification