On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 11:33:28AM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote: > > I know this "policy" has too much "best practice guides" than enforced > > "policy". But this should help promote consistency across > > documentation. > > I think it can be taken as a more or less script policy governing > debian documentation itself, or, at least, the activities of debian > documentation which is taking place under the umbrella of the DDP. > > Let me ask a question: is it intended to make this a debian subpolicy? > I don't know why this would really be desired, frankly. > Because there really is a problem in how we (as a project) a) make documentation specific for Debian b) package it c) give translators tools to work with it (i.e. translate it the first time and translate it whenever it gets updated). d) publish it online or offline (i.e. cdroms) Since each maintainer does a), b) and c) as it suits his needs its a complete chaos. Don't believe me, take a look at this output: $ apt-cache search doc |grep debian and compare it against the documents available in the DDP CVS. You will find documents missing in both places (i.e. translation not packaged or Debian documentation not in the DDP CVS). Either we streamline the process of making documents specific related to Debian (I'm not looking at documents providing upstream here), which format should the use, and how translations should be managed (so that translators can work _translating_ not comparing document diffs manually) It's obvious this effort should not target upstream (even if this issue is not fixed for upstream packages either), but we need to rationalize, at the very least our internal efforts on documenting Debian. An in making documentation I _do_ include translating it. Regards Javi
Attachment:
pgpTj6X4hojXQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature