Re: ddp-policy: [patch] typos and fixed some FIXMEs
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 11:33:28AM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> > > I know this "policy" has too much "best practice guides" than enforced
> > > "policy". But this should help promote consistency across
> > > documentation.
> >
> > I think it can be taken as a more or less script policy governing
> > debian documentation itself, or, at least, the activities of debian
> > documentation which is taking place under the umbrella of the DDP.
> >
> > Let me ask a question: is it intended to make this a debian subpolicy?
> > I don't know why this would really be desired, frankly.
> >
> Because there really is a problem in how we (as a project)
>
> a) make documentation specific for Debian
> b) package it
> c) give translators tools to work with it (i.e. translate it the first
> time and translate it whenever it gets updated).
> d) publish it online or offline (i.e. cdroms)
You forgot the most important parts:
e) present it to users
f) let users search it, browse it, read it
> Since each maintainer does a), b) and c) as it suits his needs its
> a complete chaos.
Well, part of Debian is productive chaos.
Let me put it another way: I think we need to get our own house in
order before trying to own all the documentation in Debian. I do
indeed believe in the idea of greater consistency in Debian. The
beneficiaries are the users, the translators, and ultimately the
maintainers.
I'm just not convinced of how you're going about doing it. And I'm
not convinced that DDP appropriation of all major Debian documentation
is the best approach. Historically, in fact, the DDP has been a
rather slow-moving beast -- sometimes even a ghetto of neglect. The
DDP is certainly not the best maintainer in Debian.
> Don't believe me, take a look at this output:
>
> $ apt-cache search doc |grep debian
>
> and compare it against the documents available in the DDP CVS. You will
> find documents missing in both places (i.e. translation not packaged or
> Debian documentation not in the DDP CVS).
If a translation is not packaged, let that be a bug on the package.
In some cases, Debian hasn't figured out how to package translations
(I'm thinking of descriptions in debian/control, the issue of UTF8,
now stuck in the policy group).
Contrariwise, lets take a look at the DDP is chaotic:
- DDP documentation not packaged
- web pages collecting documentation status not up-to-date
- unmaintained documentation
- overlapping documentation not merged
- policy stalled
- leaderless (?)
> Either we streamline the process of making documents specific related to
> Debian (I'm not looking at documents providing upstream here), which format
> should the use, and how translations should be managed (so that translators
> can work _translating_ not comparing document diffs manually)
I don't take it as a given that centralizing all major Debian
documentation in the DDP is "streamlining". See above.
Furthermore, I'm unsure that the best or only route of taking care of
these inefficiencies is DDP centralization. We can advocate and try
to put in place practices which effect this outcome without requiring
DDP centralization.
> It's obvious this effort should not target upstream (even if this issue is
> not fixed for upstream packages either), but we need to
> rationalize, at the very least our internal efforts on documenting Debian.
> An in making documentation I _do_ include translating it.
Sure. I try to, as well. I think I've done more work to facilite
translators than most, haven't I? I'm thinking of the install
manual/release notes translation infrastructure I put in place, the
developers-reference translation infrastructure, etc. Developers
reference also contains best pratices for facilitating translation.
--
...Adam Di Carlo..<adam@onshore-devel.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>
Reply to: