Re^2: directory structure - 2.
Am 14.04.98 schrieb Marcus.Brinkmann # ruhr-uni-bochum.de ...
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
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> 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.
Uni: Budde@tu-harburg.de Fido: 2:240/5202.15
Mailbox: firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.tu-harburg.de/~semb2204/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org