Re: Re^2: Debian Documentation Hierarchy
On Tue, Apr 21, 1998 at 08:54:00PM +0100, Marco Budde wrote:
> Am 20.04.98 schrieb Marcus.Brinkmann # ruhr-uni-bochum.de ...
> Moin Marcus!
> MB> However, we certainly should make the relationship closer. I already added
> This is not part of this discussion!
Who do you think are you that you think you can impose restrictions
on the things I discuss with someone else?
You will not hurt my civil right of free speach in public.
> MB> The issue is not resolved yet. In the front-end, I prefer the flags
> MB> (when in graphic mode) or locales ("DE", "EN") when in text mode,
> MB> presented after the document name.
> Ok, but other users prefer other solutions. That#s the reason, why we will
> have several front-ends. This is the choice of the user and this should be
> part of this standard.
We also will have the other side, the developers and a standard and
> MB> This is the reason why I want total control over sections. I think letting
> MB> document registrations create sections will lead to sloppyness and
> MB> inconsistency in the long run. If no section is appropriate, it should be
> Sorry, but I disagree. Do you want to change your standard for every new
> Debian package that includes more than one document? dhelp will of course
> offer the possibly to add new subsections. For example I don#t understand,
> why your standard includes subdirectories for a program like sendmail?
> This package includes maybe two documents.
I tried already in private mail to explain, that this was an example.
It is a good thing to let packages create a sub directory for closely
related documents. But if multiple packages use a single directory, they
have to agree on a section, a name and an abstract. This is where DDH comes
into play. This is the whole name of the game.
My standard includes a sendmail sub section, because I know (or have strong
reasons to fortell it) that there will be multiple packages that want to
add entries to this subsection. Because sendmail is a package with a long
tradition, and there is probably more documentation about sendmail that
provided by the sendmail package.
I also explained that other examples you objected to are just that,
examples. The Bash section is such an example.
Where this is necessary, time will tell (and experience). I'm not willing to
deny such sections by default. I'm also not willing to propose a ddh and
then orphan it. A ddh should have the same right to evolve as other
> For example your standard you include:
> and not
> If a package is installed, it creates the needed subdirectories.
If multiple package try, this, this will become a mess. Believe me.
> So you
> won#t have problems with new programs. And there#s another advantage: if
> you add a new subdir for every new program in your standard, the program
> package must depend on a special doc-base version.
Probably not, as we do not know currently how doc-base will work. We don't
even have agreed opn a file format.
> This will force the user to install always a new doc-base, if he installs
> a new program. That#s a bad idea.
This is just an assumption. We don't know how it will work yet. We are still
designing, and we can take influence.
> MB> Does this sound okay, or am I writing stupid things late at night?
> I prefer an open dicussion about this standard.
I try. You are the one that is sending me private mail. I respond private,
because I honour privacy.
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org