Re: Debian Reference
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 04:20:32AM +0100, Antony Gelberg wrote:
>
> There's rather a lot there.
Nay, that a tiny fraction of things which needs to be consideded. This
is one of the key reason behind why few bothered to contribute. So
changing this situation from bottom by offering better infrastructure to
create such an document is way to think.
> I'll start with a patch for Chapter 2 to
> see if we are on the same wavelength. We need to restructure it before
> we can improve the content.
Chapter 2 shares a lot with FAQ in terms of contents. Javi is updating
it. See mailing list for the details and be aware of it.
This chapter describes a lot of old things which is useful for few
extreme case. To update it, you need to be very familiar with how
Debian works and worked. I think you may need a bit more time for that.
So for now, I strongly limit patch to factual errors.
Instead, I suggest you to do bug hunting and issue hunting on chapters
and thinking how all other needs to be reorganized and how that will be
achieved:
3. installation hint.
- how this can be reorganized without duplicating install masnual.
5. Upgrading distribution
- how can this be made distribution independent
- avoid overlap with installation and release note.
6. Package management
- Now that aptitude is main tool, we need to carefully update this.
- Remove all woody/potato things.
7. Kernel
- Rewite this focusing udev/2.6 management (But who knows best?)
8. Tips
- New installation CD is not easy tool for emergency recover.
Suggest bootable CD alternative
- im-switch
- UTF-8
Oh, please read some basics of contributing document at:
http://qref.sourceforge.net/doc/
Osamu
FYI: As for the spam on the list, I gave up doing spam filtering myself.
I use (semi-)commercial POP account (gmail) to do the dirty work for me
to save my bandwidth.
Reply to: