Re: obsolete wiki
On Wed 16 Aug 2017 at 08:28:57 -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 01:09:54 PM Brian wrote:
> > The wiki page is at https://wiki.debian.org/Init
> >
> > On Tue 15 Aug 2017 at 10:07:07 -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Well, even a vague note on the page something like:
> > >
> > > "Some of this seems to be out of date with the advent of systemd and its
> > > adoption in Debian starting with version n.n (<Toy Story name>). If you
> > > can contribute anything more to this story, please do."
> > >
> > >
> > > ...would be a start.
> >
> > A note is not a bad idea, but is the information on the page really
> > outdated, or is it inappropriate because it does not reflect the reality
> > in jessie and onwards? As I tried to say in another post in this thread,
> > what should the page say and how should it be structured? What should be
> > omitted and what be put in. What is the purpose of the page?
> >
> > Sorry if I gave the impression that Felix Miata should be personally
> > responsible for any changes. The point I was trying to make was that
> > someone (or a number of someones) has to do it. Take a look at the
> > BootProcess page. The link is on the Init page; looking at that page
> > in isolation only scratches the surface of the task.
>
> I was going to go to that page and add something like the note I mentioned,
> and then suggest that you (Brian) and others check out that page and make
> additional modifications as appropriate.
>
> But, on going to that page, I see that Greg Wooledge actually modified that
> page yesterday at 17:32 (don't know if that is UTC or something else). Thank
> you, Greg.
>
> The entry in the "change log" for his changes says:
>
> "discuss the alternative init systems a bit, and at least attempt to describe
> the current state of affairs"
>
> It looks good to me (;-) but I really know nothing about what is being
> discussed.
>
> I'd suggest others take a look, and make modifications / additions as
> appropriate.
>
> Thanks again to Greg who took the bull by the horns (and, asfaict, did not get
> gored).
Looks good to me too. Just a few small changes and additions (which
hopefully polish it) made.
--
Brian.
Reply to: