Re: proofreading the installation-guide
Justin B Rye, le Tue 28 Jul 2015 21:06:03 +0100, a écrit :
> Holger Wansing wrote:
> > Justin B Rye <justin.byam.rye@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> An interesting idea, but one that seems unlikely to work, especially
> >> given the way it's used in the text. For instance, there's a page
> >> "welcome/what-is-debian-linux.xml", which is full of sentences like
> >> "&debian; was the first Linux distribution to include a package
> >> management system".
> >
> > It was mostly me changing Debian into &debian; that days in 2010.
> > If I remember correctly, it was initiated by a post of Frans Pop,
> > who proposed that change. And the rationale was in fact, to get a
> > manual, that can easily be turned from a "Debian installer manual" into
> > a "Ubuntu installer manual", for example.
>
> Whoever it is that's reworking the manual for the derivative is still
> going to need to go through the whole text changing the content.
Yes, but most probably only once. The really-debian-specific text hasn't
really changed much over years.
> The &debian; entity seems liable to cost us more effort than it saves
> them (a single extra search-and-replace operation).
Yes, but once in place, merges become trivial. That's the whole point of
it.
> >> The "&architecture;",
> >> "&arch-title;" and "&arch-kernel;" entities are slightly oddly named
>
> Since I keep losing track and having to check again, I'll leave a note
> for myself here:
> "&architecture;" = "32-bit PC", "32-bit soft-float ARM", etc.
> "&arch-title;" = "i386", "armel", etc.
> "&arch-kernel; = "Linux", "KFreeBSD", etc.
This, and also:
Hendrik Boom wrote:
> So I suppose it would be reasonable to put a comment in the document
> source explaining this, perhaps where these macros are defined
can probably find its way to common.ent indeed, patches (or simply,
commits) welcome :)
Samuel
Reply to: