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

documentation which is now officially listed as 'stalled'

[I'm cc'ing the listed authors for some documents that I think should
 be reaped.  Please reply only to the debian-doc list and not these
 authors, thanks.]

I've gone through the DDP pages, and for documentation which seems to
me to be stalled, I've moved it to the bottom of the list in it's
category and listed it as stalled in manuals.html, and I removed it
from the top page in index.html (actually, just commented out for

Please, if I made a mistake, I'm sorry.  Please do not get upset.
I've had to just blaze ahead in the interests of getting it done.  I
feel that a DDP (and <URL:http://www.debian.org/devel/>, while we're
at it) which is permeated with stale documents not so marked gives the
whole DDP the appearance of turpitude and staleness.

Also, for documentation which is actually not maintained via DDP, I've
fixed or disabled the linkages and removed it from the autobuild

Alright, here's the list of packages I so marked as stalled.  Stalled
documentation is a little different from planned documents; stalled
documents are up for consideration to be reaped completely.  I really
don't mean any disrespect to anyone here -- I just think all this
stalled and over-ambitious documentation which will never be written
should be tossed... at least for now!

  * Debian Tips --- we should just reap this one; it's not going to
    happen.  I mean, shouldn't it be part of the admin or user's
    manual or FAQ anyhow?

  * Hardware Compatibility List -- why?? Insofar as we are "Debian
    GNU/Linux", we run what Debain runs.  There's already a
    well-maintained Linux Hardware Compatability list.

  * Debian Release Notes -- no development since 07-Mar-98

  * How to get started on a new SGML-based manual
  * Debian Documentation Guidelines
      -- these should both be incorporated into debiandoc-sgml 
         manual and tossed from the page, IMHO
      -- would involve removing debiandoc-startup and sgmltools-startup
         from CVS area, as well as ldsample.tar.gz ddsample.tar.gz

Here's packages that got moved down cause there's nothing substative
there yet. I'm trying to more clearly distinguish between ready
manuals and not ready manuals, basically.  Unlike stalled manuals,
these really should be written, IMHO.

  * Debian Book Suggestions
  * Debian META Manual
  * Debian Dictionary

Here's the packages no longer listed as maintained in the DDP CVS
area.  Oliver, I've removed these from the manuals.sgml/Makefile but
not actually removed the files.  You might remove the files if you
care to and agree...

  * Debian Packaging Manual
  * dpkg Internals Manual (strange, it was linked to manuals.html but the 
    SGML source wasn't in manuals.sgml)
  * Debian Menu System
  * Debiandoc-SGML Markup Manual 

Other package descriptions or info changed:

  * Debian GNU/Linux FAQ
    -- I can't reconcile the DDP flavor of this with the official
       online version; they seem to be forked!!!
  * Debian-user FAQ-O-MATIC -- new maintainer, Ivan Stojic
  * Installation Manual (which I'm going to *try* to maintain ;)
  * System Administrator's Manual (in active development, AFAIK)
  * Debian-user FAQ-O-MATIC (looking for a new maintainer, I think)
  * Debian Policy Manual (maintained by debian-policy@lists.debian.org, 
     available via CVS -- I wish we could link to a live CVS checked out 
     version of this)
  * Debian Packaging Manual (maintained by debian-policy@lists.debian.org, 
     available via package and CVS -- I wish we could link to a live CVS 
     checked out version of this)
  * Debian Menu System (link to cannonical www.debian.org/doc/ area)
  * Debiandoc-SGML Markup Manual (no online link known)

Nits fixed:

  * don't hypenate 'on-line', it should be 'online'
  * 'in work' status changed to 'in active development'
  * Headings such as "General Manuals" changed to <H1>
  * other little weblint stuff

Nits not fixed:

  * Inconsistent use of Links

.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>

Reply to: