[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Listing for release notes on DDP pages



On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:39:46PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> At http://www.debian.org/doc/user-manuals#relnotes we currently have (the 
> bits between <<...>> are links):
> 
> <snip>

<snip, snip>

> I'd like to propose the following changes:
> - Authors: add everybody listed as such in current version; I don't
>   feel it's necessary to indicate 'current' here.

Agreed.

> - Maintainer: remove; as this is not a package it does not really have a
>   single maintainer but more a teal of editors (listed in Authors).

Maybe having the (current) list of editors as maintainers might be
reasonable. Some people use that field to ping the maintainer directly
(before going to the BTS). I think, however, that there should be only one
person here. 

> - Status: Rewrite first sentence to "Actively maintained for Debian
>   releases"; remove the bit about "Split packages".

Ok. I assume you propose leaving the "debian-doc" bit.

> - Availability: remove the reference to ftp.d.o as we don't seem to
>   publish the RN there anymore (and personally I don't see any added
>   value in restoring that).

Hmmm.. I don't see the value of providing the RN so hidden in the ftp's
directory structure, howerver I do see the value of providing them under
/doc/.  After all (I believe) we have much more ftp mirror servers than web
mirror servers.

Not having the release notes in a package, however, means users have to
obtain them from either:

- their CDs/DVDs (not available in the mini-isos, however, just on full ISOs,
  right?)
- www.debian.org

Previously we had 'boot-floppies' provide both the sources and contents of
the Release Notes. Having a 'release-notes' package does have some benefits:

- users can 'install' them and have them indexed with their tools, such as
  doc-www or beagle
- they could get installed 'byhand' under f.d.o:/doc/

There would be some other drawbacks (which I've experienced with doc-debian)
which make me reluctant to go this way, however. This is certainly something
that we (DDP) have not agreed on (see [1])

Regards

Javier

[1] 
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-manuals.en.html#s3.5.7

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: