Re: Second draft of Woody release notes
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 05:22:00PM -0500, James A. Treacy wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 07:15:46PM +0000, Rob Bradford wrote:
> > A big thanks to everyone who replied to the last thread, hopefully i managed
> > to integrate in your contributions. An especially big thanks to joeyh is
> > in order!
> > As before you can find this at:
> > http://people.debian.org/~robster/i386.en.[sgml|html/]
> IMO, the order of the Copyright notice and Contents sections should be reversed.
Doesnt the debiandoc dtd define this? Or debiandoc2html or whatever.
> Also, it's ok if you add your name to the list of people holding the
> copyright, but it does irk me a bit when I see only your name and it is
> sitting a few lines below the abstract, most of which are my words. :)
> Unless everything you write is your own, all past and current
> contributors should be listed. If in your opinion this is a major
> overhaul, and the bulk of the work is yours, it is appropriate to put
> your name first.
Most definitely, i actually forgot to put this as one of the points in my
original message. The reason i have not done it straightaway is because of
the huge number of contributions from various groups. I suggest all these
contributors go into a contributors section. The copyright of the document
should be held by Debian as so many people have contributed. Under the
authors at the bottom the maintainers (uie major contributors) of the
document should be listed.
> The number of packages is too small:
> bash$ grep ^Package: /var/lib/apt/lists/http.us.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-i386_Packages | wc
> 7337 14674 149643
> bash$ grep ^Package: /var/lib/apt/lists/http.us.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_contrib_binary-i386_Packages | wc
> 208 416 4141
> bash$ grep ^Package: /var/lib/apt/lists/non-us.debian.org_debian-non-US_dists_unstable_non-US_main_binary-i386_Packages | wc
> 370 740 8055
> That is a total 7915. Given that not all the current packages will make
> it into the new release, it is probably fair to say, 'over 7500
> packages'. That should be close enough, and if we remember, the number
> can be updated again after the freeze.
The number was one for source packages quoted by someone on irc.
> 10 architectures. Wow. That's impressive.
Hopefully, but then again i cant see into the future.
> In the comments below, I have removed some material without comment.
> The primary reason is the belief that information should be accurate,
> but you don't always need to give all the bloody details. Also, I feel
> a more professional approach is more appropriate. So, while I appreciate
> inside jokes about apt having 'super cow powers', most people will think
> we are a bunch of wackos.
<Robot101> we *are* =)
<treacy> that's besides the point!
I'll fix everything you've brought up and i greatly appreciate the time you
have put into checking this and for your feedback. Thanks
Rob 'robster' Bradford
Chief Editor/Lead developer