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

Re: Revising the {Policy,Programmers}manual

On "Fri, 15 Nov 1996 03:59:00 GMT." Ian Jackson wove together:
[> David Morris has volunteered to do some manual updates - good.  I hope
[> everyone won't mind if I take a somewhat anal-retentive attitude to
[> it, as I'm anxious that the new text should be correct.

As it should be. And since I am reflecting questions that have either come up 
in discussion or in my own mind we need a type of precision that is clear.

[> So, I'm going to comment on each of his questions:
[> [some snipping] 
[> >  * clarification of shlibs section
[> >    [from a note from Heiko who is working on the dpkg code]
[> Fine.  Try not to remove any of my text, if you can, though it might
[> be best moved into a section with the other shlibs stuff perhaps ?

Got it, the stuff Heiko sent me seemed to be additional detail about the 
shlibs files and who does what with which ones.

[> [snip]
[> >  * does the language defining non-free/contrib need to be clarified?
[> No, please don't change a word of it.

OK, I just know we have had some discussion about it, but as Guy (I think) 
said this is a very old discussion that was closed. May I add a couple headers 
to the copyright section to "highlight" the differences?

[> In email to myself, Bruce and Sven he also asks - I hope he won't mind
[> me quoting it here:
Not in the least, I wasn't sure how public the discussion should be. I welcome 

[> > How extensive of an edit can I do? I can already see a few areas that it 
[> > be nice to reorganize and clump together (especially in the programmer's 
[> > manual where there are quite a few "look to page XX"s) I do not want to 
[> > the policy standards, just make the policy statements more readible and 
[> > hopefully clearer). If I can do some more extensive editing (still unsure 
[> > extensive right now, I wanted to ask before I put the energy into it) I 
[> > put the draft on my personal web site and solicit comments. It will 
mostly be
[> > moving things around and adding/changing some of the divisions and 
[> In principle I don't have an objection to stuff being moved around.
[> However, my experience with letting other people edit documents I've
[> written is that the edited versions frequently say something subtly
[> different.  I don't know how precise you feel your understanding of my
[> wording is.

That is true. As an exegete and interpreter of the Christian scriptures (day 
job is ordained minister) I understand very clearly the subtleties of language.

[> I'm afraid I can't say for sure whether I'd be happy with any changes
[> until I saw them.  My advice would be to start slowly, and if I don't
[> object you can be more ambitious :-).

Fair enough. Do you have a preferred way of looking at them? As I mentioned I 
was thinking of using the debiandoc2html utility and putting it on my own web 
space for perusal. (I will have to see how debiandoc-sgml can be used to mark 

[> [more editing - practice ;)]
[> I hope to be back in more active participation in Debian in time to
[> help with 1.3.
That sounds good, Ian. Thanks for the feedback.

The AtticKeeper: David Morris  mailto:bweaver@worf.netins.net
Though no one can go back and make a brand new start,
anyone can start from now and make a brand new ending... -- Unknown
The Nerdnosh Attic: http://www.netins.net/showcase/nerdnosh
The Lectionary Page: http://www.netins.net/showcase/dmorris/
PGP Public Key available via Finger

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com

Reply to: