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

Re^2: directory structure - 2.

Am 14.04.98 schrieb Marcus.Brinkmann # ruhr-uni-bochum.de ...

Moin Marcus!

MB> No offense meant, but I find this sort of ordering very inefficient for
MB> the users. If I need information about my SB AWE soundcard, where do I
MB> look?

sound and HOWTO. It#s very difficult to find a good structure. This is one  
of the problems of a lot of WWW sites. Maybe some of Christians ideas (/ 
users and /devel) are not bad.

MB> The ftp organization has absolutely no connection about finding

But it shows the needed sections.

MB> information. It has something to do with finding packages/software, and
MB> even here I often guess wrong when I look for a specific package via ftp.

I#ve got the same problem, but in most cases this is caused by the  
maintainer, because he uses the wrong section.

MB> This is the wrong approach. You should know that libraries don't sort
MB> books by publishers, size or color. They arrange them not in alphabetical
MB> order, too (alphabetical ordering is the *last* criterium). There are

Really? In most libraries they#re sorted by topic (like our section) and  

MB> Algebra and so on. The third letter gives even more information. For most
MB> books, you can say what information is in the book just by knowing the

Well at our library at the TU HH there#re only numbers (10 digits) on the  

MB> The people that invent such structures take a lot care about this, and
MB> they know why. Searching in a big library for information can be a pain.

Why? You enter some interesting words and the computer finds some good  
books. I would never look on the number/code of a book.

MB> ordering, but it does not take into count *one* of the important things
MB> you need to make information easy accesible.

I don#t know which is the best solution. Let#s start with the structure  
itself. We could discuss the other problems later.

MB> We should not be too picky about a structure now: It will evolve when
MB> documents are added. However, we should have a *solid* base for a starter.

That#s it. A maintainer could always add new directories (see dhelps  

MB> I think we have the following main levels:
MB> Debian
MB> Administration
MB> Development
MB> Using (weak word, has someone a better word?).

Maybe you#re right. User, Applikation? But we need sections for something  
like FAQs, HOWTOs, books and magazines. How should we call this root  

MB> For example, all X related documents could be stored in a single tree X,
MB> but the individual documents should also be find below Administration,
MB> Development and Using.

I totally disagree. The maintainer should split the X11 documentation like  

  devel/x11 or better devel/libs

MB> I see no problem in using several main branches: There could even be a
MB> branch that has all Apllications (similar to the menu system), that

100 documents in one directory? A very bad idea. And I don#t like the  
system used by menu (or dwww). This will not work, if we have got hundrets  
of packages using such a system.

MB> collects the documents related to a single program. Maybe this is what
MB> Marco has in mind?

I don#t understand this. Please give an example.

MB> However, we should have one or two such main branches (maybe the one above
MB> and the "Application" branch that are mandatory for every document. This
MB> would mean that every document has to register at least once in each of

I don#t understand this, too.

MB> Note that this question is very related to the structure of the Debian
MB> FAQ-o-Matic, and I think they could probably be build after the same model
MB> (maybe this would give the faq-o-matic a push). Please also note that this
MB> does not mean that we should take the structure from the faq-o-matic (I
MB> wouldprefer the other way round ;)

Could you please post the structure of this system.

cu, Marco

Uni: Budde@tu-harburg.de           Fido: 2:240/5202.15
Mailbox: mbudde@hqsys.antar.com    http://www.tu-harburg.de/~semb2204/

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: