[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#149420: install doc clarification



reassign 149240 install-doc
thanks

On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 02:29:14AM -0400, ant wrote:
> Package: boot-floppies
> Version: 3.0.23

That's perfect. Except, as a documentation bug, it should really go against 
install-doc (I re-assigned it above). It is not a problem to submit against
boot-floppies.

>   i'm not a subscriber of this list (i read it via the web and
> via usenet gateway) but wished to pass these noticed things along...
> 
>   sorry, also be gentle with me, i didn't want to send this as
> three different bugs.  :)

If there are really 3 different subjects, we don't care how many bug numbers 
get used. But for several doc comments against one doc, one bug seems fine.

> 1.  in the document:
> 
> http://www.debian.org/releases/woody/i386/ch-install-methods.en.html#s-create-floppy

> [...snip...]

>   anyways, this last bit could mislead someone to thinking that
> NTRawrite could be used on a Win95/98 system, but after downloading
> and looking at it the stuff says WinNT/2000 and nothing about 
> Win98/95.  attempts to use in on Win98 didn't work.  (using the
> other programs mentioned worked just fine so i ended up using
> those eventually and all is fine now)

fixed, I removed Win95/98.

> 2. when going to report this bug using the section:
> 
> http://www.debian.org/releases/woody/i386/ch-administrivia.en.html
> 
> ---quote---
> 
> 12.2 Contributing to This Document
> If you have problems or suggestions regarding this document, you should probably submit them as a bug report against the package boot-floppies. See the bug or reportbug package or read the online documentation of the Debian Bug Tracking System.  [...]
> 
> ---endquote---
> 
>   note that the package name is boot-floppies, but on the actual:
> 
> http://www.debian.org/Bugs/pseudo-packages
> 
>   page the package name is boot-floppy (so if the above doesn't
> work i did try, but selected the name with the more recent use).

fixed, changed this section to refer to the docs package 'install-doc'.
The pseudo-packages page is an attempt to let people off the hook when 
they don't know the real package name, by giving them some pseudonyms
that will work anyway.

> 3. while trying to find the version of the pseudo-package to 
> put in the second line above i had to go look in some rather 
> odd places (and a search on the packages didn't find what 
> sounded like the right version either -- eventually i tracked 
> it down via the list that i subscribe to (boot) and i hope 
> it's the right one (the images i used were downloaded 5/27/02 
> so i think they're the current ones).  well anyways it would
> have been helpful to have those pseudo-packages and the versions
> listed in the package lists that i searched (only one showed
> in "stable" and it was a further along version) or to have the
> various versions available show up in 
> 
> http://www.debian.org/Bugs/pseudo-packages
> 
>   or something that would be easily found.

As you get more used to Debian you'll find it all makes sense. Also, 
if you install and use reportbug, it goes and looks up the package 
version you have installed for you, as well as adding some stuff 
about your machine into the bug report.

The installer package (whether boot-floppies or the next installer)
will always be a bit strange; it's not actually installed on your
system. The version is displayed in the splash screen when you start 
the installer.

Thanks for your report.

-- 
*------v--------- Installing Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 --------v------*
|      <http://www.debian.org/releases/woody/installmanual>      |
|   debian-imac (potato): <http://debian-imac.sourceforge.net>   |
|            Chris Tillman        tillman@voicetrak.com          |
|                   May the Source be with you                   |
*----------------------------------------------------------------*



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org



Reply to: