Re: Debdoc
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Pavel M. Penev wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, erik wrote:
>
> > > > 5. questions and answers
> > >
> > > This section is what, I think, we should avoid :).
> >
> > Do you mean the Q&A/FAQ section? If so, I'm not sure I agree but good
> > reasoning might pursuade me. My initial thought is that this is a good
> > place for user input ...
>
> Right, the Q&A/FAQ section:
> In a good documentation system (like the one we are trying to create) the
> user is supposed to able to straight-forwardly find the information they
> need. In my oppinion the Q&As/FAQs are just an ugly patch to the
> documentation -
mmm, I see your point. I guess we could leave it out to begin with - if
there is a demand for it or it seems useful later it is easy enough to add.
> > > And about the default content -- I think it is a great idea.
> >
> > BTW, this idea expanded quite nicely into the idea of using the
> > documentaion system itself as its first subject -ie. build it first to
> > document itself.
>
> Yes, though we will make the templated documentation about debdoc, won't
> we?
Precisely - then the function of the program will serve to inform the
structure of its creation.
> I. Documentation Servicing:
> 1. Introduction -- impression-creatig or also "front" pages.
> 2. Index (TOC).
>
> II. Legal:
> 1. Credits.
> 2. License.
I have these in one section: <pkg-name>index.html - purely for
conceptual organization. ( someone has commented on the use of XML)
>
> III. Application:
> 1. Installation instructions.
well, as this is initially for debs we don't really need to install do we
;) - but maybe something on configuration ? Installation however would
be in a " source" template perhaps.
2. Tutorial.
> 2.1. All practical application aspects tutorial.
> 2.2. HowTo:
> 2.2.* A set of HowTo-s for each practically
> applied aspect of the application's
> functionality.
I would add a brief set of examples here.. as 2.3
> 3. Full application functionality documentation.
I have 3. in technical info - separate and more detailed coverage.
>
> IV. Development:
> 1. Programming.
> 1.1. Scientific references used in the application.
> 1.2. Source coding style.
> 1.3. Change log.
> 2. Distribution.
> 2.1. Log of distributor's changes.
> 2.2. Pointers to other known distributed packages.
I think this one is a good start for the general " Development "
template.
>
> I guess we would need a complete set of these before starting to write the
> application.
So far I have 4 that might cover things to start:
1. Application - simple UI introduction
2. Development - for libs and languages ( could be sudivided there)
3. SysAdmin - obvious I hope
4. Source - goes with deb-src to begin with. Much more detailed and in
depth. Also a more complex template to design I think.
I have several pages of notes on general structure - soon as I get time
I'll get them organized and ship them off to you. It might be a bit much
for the list ( I understand that they like to keep the load down if
possible) so I might send it to you directly as a tarball if thats OK ?
Let me know.
> > Small note: I have some "real" work to do too ;(- don't be
surprized if I > > am quiet for a little bit, I'll be back soon.
>
> Well, I see: the QtEZ you are dealing with. Sorry for resending my message
> (so silly -- I recieved your answer the same dialing up when I resent my
> message, sorry, again).
Hey, no problem. I'm still tracking the list.
Actually QtEZ is on hold for a little - but I have several other things
going on at once. Bad habit of mine ...
erik
Reply to:
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Debdoc
- From: "Pavel M. Penev" <kal_pav@sz.techno-link.com>
- References:
- Re: Debdoc
- From: "Pavel M. Penev" <kal_pav@sz.techno-link.com>