Re: Re^2: directory structure - 2.
On 16 Apr 1998, Marco Budde wrote:
> Am 16.04.98 schrieb schwarz # monet.m.isar.de ...
> Moin Christian!
> CS> This sounds like a great idea! If noone else objects, please start
> ? I#ve posted already such a list.
> CS> maintaining the list! If the list has evolved and is ready, it should
> CS> become part of the doc-base documentation.
> ? No it should be part of the Policy or a free standard. This structure
> will not only used by doc-base.
doc-base will be mandatory by the new Doc Policy some day. With that, all
packages registering manuals will have to support doc-base. We've done
good in the past to leave such details out of the policy manual--these
details are better maintained by the individual package maintainers than
by the policy manager. (Just check out the emacs policy, for example.)
> CS> I've included a first proposal of myself below. Note, that this is just my
> CS> very personal opinion--feel free to change this if you don't like it.
> Please remove the documents itself from the structure. They#re not
> interesting for our discussion.
You're kidding! We _are_ talking about a structure for a document
hierarchy. Do you really think we could run such a discussion without
considering which documents we have?!
> CS> 1. Most people seem agree that documents should to be registered in
> CS> several sections at once. This should be considered when setting up the
> CS> structure.
> Most people? Let#s stop this discussion. At first we should talk about the
> structure and the file format. The use of the system should be discussed
> in debian-devel.
1. This discussion is important _now_, we postpone it.
2. Only you have objected. Everyone else that has taken part of the
discussion agreed. I take this as a majority.
3. The discussion does not belong to debian-devel. I don't say this
because I `fear' that people on debian-devel would disagree! In fact, I
think we have all doc experts on this list. We'll prepare an doc policy
proposal here and after it's ready we'll report to debian-devel to get it
approved by _all_ developers. (Note, that I already offered to send an
announcements to the other lists that we are holding this discussion on
debian-doc now. I don't want that this discussion is hidden here! However,
I guess most intrested developers are already subscribed.)
> CS> Ordering documents into categories like "howto", "faq", "magazines",
> CS> "debian", etc. (categorized by source) is definitely *not* user friendly!=
> I disagree 100%.
Note, that I said `user', not `maintainer'. How could a Linux newbie know
that the information she's looking for is included in some HOWTO document,
and not in a FAQ???
> CS> language. I think the only logical way to handle this situation, is to
> CS> store documents of all languages in a single structure, and let the user
> CS> choose the preferred language at document-level, like in this example:
> CS> User's Manuals
> CS> Office applications
> CS> _StarOffice User's Manual_ (English version, German version)
> I disagree 100%.
I've already noticed that you tend to disagree with greats part I say. I
don't have a problem with that--but please be a bit more specific about
the reasons you disagree. If you just tell us that you disagree, we'll
never get a chance to think about your ideas.
-- Christian Schwarz
Debian has a logo! firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Check out the logo PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
pages at http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/debian-logo/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com