Re: random comments and requests for information
At 11:06 PM 1/20/00 -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
>Ross Boylan wrote:
>> First, could someone tell me what NMU stands for? I see it on bug reports
>> and other debian places.
>That is a non-maintainer upload of a package; a developer other than the
>normal maintainer released it.
>> I mean, remarks like "you are deeply confused" (that was directed at
>> my comments about adding drivers to the install process) can be taken the
>> wrong way! By the way, I'm sure I am deeply confused, but I reread the
>> fine install manuals, and it didn't provide any additional clues about how
>> to slip drivers in. The install manual says there's this one big file (or
>> set of floppies) and to use it; there's no guidance about screwing around
>> with it. Secondly, I was thinking of using the drivers before I got to
>> that point--specifically, my drivers file was on an NTFS partition on my
>> first run through the install.
>It is possible to recompile the kernel that is on the boot disk. I belive
>the instructions for doing so are on the README on that disk. It's not
>particularly easy, since other modules elsewhere are compiled for the kernel
>image that is normally on that disk any may break if you swap in a new
Aside from this being tricky for a novice, as you point out, it also
doesn't help someone who's sitting there with an NT box to which he's
downloaded the files--more or less the situation I was in, except I had a
FAT partition around I could use to bootstrap things.
It might be good to have a section of the installation manual which offers
people an easy standard route to installation. I think the fewer choices
the better for someone who's just starting. Just pick the single most
likely path, e.g., stick in the CD (or maybe make the boot floppies) that
will cover the most people.
Cooper (?) in his book The Inmates are Running the Asylum reports that
every extra choice and feature "costs" the typical user something. He
redesigned some tool (I think it some kind of web-site creator or graphics
program), mainly by removing features and functionality. He then had users
compare it to the original. They not only reported they like it better,
but that it was *more* powerful. His interpretation is that although the
feature set shrunk, the useable feature set actually increased.
>> Third, is there a standard way to capture errors? During most of the
>> install things just sail by. And then afterwards, when I run (for example)
>> dpkg and get lots of complaints (something about perl), I'd like something
>> better to put in a bug report (that is, better than "something about
>> perl"). I thought (hoped?) that errors go to some standard place (at least
>> on a per-package basis), but I don't know if that's true.
>Try running script before you run apt.
Do you mean run script, then run apt, like
or is it
script apt-get ....?
(Sorry. I'm on NT, so can't just flip into potato to see what's going on.
I know it probably is obvious once I get there, but I thought I'd ask just
Thanks for the help.
>see shy jo