Upgrade docs and Release Notes (was Re: Starting second test cycle)
On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 01:56:08PM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I've installed the upgrade-{alpha,i386,m68k,sparc} directories provided
> > > by Anne Bezemer, probably too late to be picked up by today's mirror run.
> > >
> >
> > Please, where ever this thing for sparc came from, delete it until it is
> > correct. The way it reads sounds like sparc upgrading is broken due to not
> > having a static apt/dpkg set. This is WRONG. I told Anne this, and it
> > looks like he ignored that. The document should atleast say in the "sparc"
> > section, this exact information. Until it does, I would like it removed.
>
> I've put a VERY explicit note in the sparc UPGRADING.txt/html:
>
> =============================================================
> NOTE: there are no official upgrading procedures for sparc.
> Below is the procedure that applies to other architectures, in the
> hope that it has some relevance to sparc.
> There are no static versions of `apt' and `dpkg' available for sparc.
> If you need more precise information, or if you have questions, please
> contact
> debian-sparc@lists.debian.org
> =============================================================
http://www.debian.org/releases/2.2/sparc/release-notes/
THAT is explicit. THOSE are the exact docs that come from the
boot-floppies, and they are the ones where *I* supplied the information
needed to do upgrades, aswell as general information that applies to ALL
archs. This is repetition, and it is pointless.
> I don't read here that anything is broken at all. Only that nobody (including
> you) cared to supply any information. For example how EXACTLY to do CD
> upgrades (step-by-step instructions like those present & tested for other
> arches). Until someone provides that info, I'm telling people to contact the
> debian-sparc list, which seems the wisest thing to do.
A) I did tell you.
B) I shouldn't expect that someone else would try to overshadow the work I
have already done in the boot-floppies documentation. That is where all
the port maintainers put their notes. They should NOT be seperate, they
should be merged, and the upgrade-* directies should contain the
COMPLETE release-notes from the boot-floppies documentation.
> I'm _not_ going to just say "once you have a 2.2.x kernel you automagically
> will have a potato system" because people are _not_ helped by that.
>
> Furthermore, AFAIK(!!) all info _except_ the `PREPARING TO UPGRADE' section
> (still ~50% of the doc) also applies to Sparc.
I don't expect you to, it has already been done. Your info needs to be
added to that, not replacing it.
>
> Dark: IF you ever remove the sparc docs (which I would consider a BAD thing
> for any less experienced sparc user), be sure to replace it with a simple
> "contact debian-sparc@lists.debian.org for upgrade info" notice, so that
> people will at least know how to (hopefully) get any upgrade info at all.
>
Excuse me, are you in charge of the sparc distribution? Anyway, the docs
are already available. If your concern is to make them easily accesible,
then I suggest we put the release notes there and update them to include
your information. Atleast THEN, the port maintainers would have access to
modify it to match the status of the specific arch.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: