Re: Renaming as "Debian Reference"?
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:34:25PM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Well, perhaps just "Debian Reference" would be suitable. It's really not
> > quick if it's got a larger index than some other documents have contents :)
> > I said attempts, not good descriptive manuals <shrug> What we currently have
> > is quite inferior.
> I am flattered. But authoritative name such as "Debian Reference" bears
> big responsibility. (I am scared.)
Don't be :) It's really good that someone has taken interest in doing this.
It really needed/needs to be done.
> If no one objects, I will change its title as you indicated or to the any
> good alternative name before asking some one to package this as .deb for
So, let's make a reference/ directory in the DDP CVS tree, and start merging
the quickref and the generic parts of faq in there.
> After all, Josip, you are a doc-debian package other key documentation
Now you're making me feel important :o) I just happen to be one of the few
remaining semi-active documentation people in Debian... <shrug>
> > > Informative documents for specific topics:
> > > * Debian META Manual
> > Oh, I didn't know this was being updated.
> "Jul 9 1998" (For English original) I hardly call it "updated".
Ah, two things confused me -- I saw it has contents instead of being just
planned as the DDP index indicates, and the web version included a 2002 date
so I thought it was being updated.
> > It seems as if it replaces the www.debian.org/doc/ddp pages, and I
> > don't see much point in that...
> That is true. But only if updated :)
So, this predates the DDP web pages as they are now and is made obsolete by
them. The /doc/ web page was also redone recently (by yours truly) and it's
no longer as useless. Therefore the meta manual has no use other than being
available offline -- and it's not being made available offline.
> > And the name "META Manual" is bad, most people won't understand what's it
> > about it instantly.
> In plain words of a non-native person, this is simply "Introduction to
> the Debian Documentation".
Yeah. It should have been named like that from the start... but never mind.
> > > Questionable contents:
> > > --- Keep these just as archives and no links from front pages:
> > I'd prefer to keep them listed but clearly marked as bad.
> I agree. http://www.debian.org/doc/ddp should not contain direct links
> to these but just a single link to the archived document lists.
That would work.
2. That which causes joy or happiness.