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

Re: Reviving the Debian FAQ

On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 02:01:48AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> The Debian FAQ [0] has been, unfortunately, unmaintained for quite some time 
> and needs a thorough review.


> I updated information in the FAQ in preparation for the sarge release when I
> noticed that it was out of date and incomplete [1].  After the release
> I've been fixing some other obsolete sections and fixing some of
> its long-standing bugs, uploading new revisions of the doc-debian package
> in the process.


> It would be really great if other DDs could review the FAQ fully and
> point out:
> a- missing FAQ items, that is, things that people commonly ask about Debian 
>    that are not there and we should write about.
> b- obsolete FAQ items, i.e., items in the FAQ that are no longe relevant and
>    should be removed or rewritten.
> c- incorrect FAQ items, i.e., items that should be rewritten or fixed because
>    they contain innacurate statements.

I think key for maintainable document is limitted scope.  For things
like "How to become DD?", pointer to NM page will be better.

In the same thought, remove overlap with Debian Reference in terms of
archive structure and deprecated package management tool such as
dpkg-ftp.  I think pointer to Debian Reference Chapter 2 will be good on

> several reasons why I believe this document should be kept up to date: it's 
> included in the official Debian CDs (it's one of the few documents provided 
> there), it's included in all the official Debian mirrors (under /doc/), 
> and many users (well, those that RTFM, that is) might go read it since 
> it's listed as the first "User document" currently in our web page.


That is why this FAQ should limit its scope to the narrowest one and
leave most of the descriptive contents to other places.

Good luck.
PS: Maybe we need to discuss this in debian-doc.  How to recommend user
which distribution to use stable/testing/unstable, is touchy issue.

Reply to: