Re: Split of volatile webpages complete: please test/comment
Mike Dornberger wrote:
> Hi Luk,
Hi Mike
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 04:31:39PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>> The split of the volatile webpages is comitted into the www.d.o
>> repository.
>>
>> Please test if everything is working correctly and don't be afraid to send
>> comments to the appropriate list or in private.
>
> would be easier, if you included the link to page you meant. I forgot the
> actual address and had to use google. :)
>
> Google first pointed me to http://volatile.debian.net/ and from there the
> big letters say, I should visit http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-volatile/
> instead, because v.d.n is probably out of date.
The page has been split in http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-volatile/ for
developers (a.k.a. uploaders) and http://www.debian.org/volatile/ for users.
So the page you were looking for is probably the latter...
The http://volatile.debian.org site will probably soon just redirect to
http://www.debian.org/volatile/
If someone knows a good way to mention the users' page on the devels' page and
vice versa, please share it :-)
> Both sites say, it should be easy for admins to "just use" volatile and
> sloppy is mentioned, but there is no config snipped how that could be done.
> (E. g. sources.list entry, is something necessary for the apt preferences
> file?) I think this should be there or a big fat link for those admins where
> appropriate information can be found. The www.d.o page lacks also a link to
> mirrors and the signing keys.
All are mentioned on the page meant for users: http://www.debian.org/volatile/
> Maybe it would also be a good idea to mention, that the volatile packages/
> versions cannot be found via packages.debian.org.
Well, backports packages, security packages, proposed-updates packages etc are
also not found via packages.debian.org.
> Back in 2005 I had some suggestions about the site (of which some got
> already included). See the subthread starting at:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-volatile/2005/12/msg00003.html
In fact everything is included but your next point...
> I think it is still a good idea to say something about "Your package got
> rejected. -- So what next?" Is the MessageID finder mentioned in some policy
> or reference manual that can be pointed to? (The actual address for it is:
> http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/?m=<msg-id> )
Like 'Please read the above again', sorry but I don't see what it brings to
repeat everything in the negative sense...
> I wrote about "user wishes" back there, IIRC backports.org wasn't born (or
> at least not as good as it is today) that time. But I still think some
> comments about "If you (non-DD) think package xyz may be a candidate for
> volatile..." would be good. Something like 'ask about opinions on the
> volatile mailing list, Cc the maintainer, maybe you can provide a patch that
> makes xyz build in a stable environment' ... 'If the answer is no, have a
> look at backports.org.' (Maybe Azureus is a good counter example, for
> packages not suitable for volatile these days.)
Mentioning backports might be a good idea, what do others think?
Cheers
Luk
Reply to: