Re: www.debian.org: Find semi-automated way to provide doc-debian-NN info
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
Le 24/07/2001 20:46, Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pena a écrit :
> We currently have the same info in the www archive as in the FTP archive
> and some packages (doc-debian for example). We should find a way to provide
> information common to some packages (doc-debian and doc-debian-es, for example
> I just submitted a bug to the latest one) in a semi-automatic way.
It seems like doc-debian(-NN) packages have not been updated in years,
and may contain outdated documentation. It also seems like most
documents that used to be part of doc-debian(-NN)? are now shipped as
their own package, e.g. debian-faq(-NN). Furthermore, most online
documentations on www.d.o are either shipped directly from their
associated package, or built from the DDP Subversion repository (so they
are kept up to date the other way around).
> Common information includes:
> - bug refcards
> - information on bug access and reporting
> - mailing list information
> - social contract
> - constitution
If doc-debian(-NN) packages are still worthy for these documentations, I
do believe that this “semi-automated way to provide info” bug report
should be reassign to the doc-debian(-NN), as it just sounds like some
sort of missing watch file feature (no objection a priori to host a
trigger, or an extra info file online that could feel the blank in order
to ease this bugs handling, but it definitely is not a www.master.org
issue per se).
Another idea would be to host those documents in the DDP or inside their
own packages, and published them on the website as it's done for the
Debian Policy (or the Developer's Reference to give an example of
translated documentation also shipped from its package).
Regards
David
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)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=j6Lj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: