Re: package of the week
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:12:19PM -0800, Andre L. wrote:
> During a conversation about possible improvements to DWN,
> Joey Schulze suggested getting the old package of the week
> (POW) idea going again. [1] The plan is each week we'd
> review one featured package on debian.org (probably
> somewhere under News/), with a link in the DWN issue. I've
> agreed to do a few reviews, as has Matt Black.
>
> [1] Previous discussion about the POW idea:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200204/msg01803.html
>
> We're looking for some advice on web strategy.
>
> The first question is about including images (screenshots)
> in the reviews. I think we should be okay if we strictly
> enforce (perhaps using WML code) a few rules:
>
> 1) No more than 100K total of images per review.
> 2) Any images inlined should be <10K thumbnail linked to fullsize.
> 3) ALT/TITLE tags should convey the size/format of fullsize.
> 4) The necessary magic is used to store images in CVS.
>
> I've got two samples of how I think it might work at
> http://www.u.arizona.edu/~andrel/pow/
>
> Is this a sane policy? Are images a problem?
>
> What about sound clips? These would only rarely be
> appropriate, say for something like the festival speech
> synthesizer.
>
> I'm also going to need some help with WML code for
> headers/footers, and to provide a link to the Debian package
> page, since that URL might change in the future. Probably
> also table of contents. If Joey wants, we might even try to
> automatically link it into DWN. My WML scripting attempts
> so far haven't worked. Anybody willing to help out?
>
> Any feedback on the samples is also very welcome. I'm not
> sure I've yet hit on the right format for things. Not the
> header/footer issues, but rather things like what to say
> about the package, how much to say, what screenshots to
> include, which links are needed, etc. (Of course other
> reviewers will do things their own way, and that's fine.)
>
If you make any SGML/WML/HTML type contents, please consider to add
following items included in the source file in a consistent manner.
1) Review date string
"20030310"
2) Reviewer string
"Foo Bar"
3) Program categor(y|ies)
(Aptitude's categorical broweser entries are nicer and
finer grain than the standard debian category)
4) Package name(s) with versions: comma separated
apt (0.5.4), aptitude (0.2.11.1-2), dselect (1.10.9), synaptic (0.25-2)
5) Review title
"Battle of the package installers"
This should help indexing them in the future.
--
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> Cupertino CA USA, GPG-key: A8061F32
.''`. Debian Reference: post-installation user's guide for non-developers
: :' : http://qref.sf.net and http://people.debian.org/~osamu
`. `' "Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software" --- Social Contract
Reply to: