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

Bug#147164: www.debian.org: DDP policy is too out of date

Package: www.debian.org
Version: N/A; reported 2002-05-16
Severity: important

(didn't now where to send this to, we should have a virtual 'debian-ddp'
or 'documentation' package to send the DDP stuff to).

Ok. The current DDP policy is way out of date, this has as a consequence
that there are a number of discrepancies in the published documentation on
how to handle, for example, internationalization extensions.

Some issues that need to be tackled in policy which are currently not there:

- use of CVS in the DDP documentation (this is a must and many documentation
does not follow it)

- how must packages be prepared: one package per document? one for each
translated version?

- layout of documentation in ftp.debian.org/debian/doc (we are not currently publishing
there since it's done with 'byhand' targets in the packages), we need to
remove the byhand targets to properly "control" that section and tell
authors how to publish there

- formats (other than HTML) that the document must compile to in order for
it to be published.

- where to send bugs related to documentation (to the package? to the
www site?)

- procedure of inclusion of documents in the DDP CVS server (what to edit,
what to add and what to change) (not really policy but should be added)

I have a draft of proposal to remove the current policy and add a new one
which should close this bug. Will post more info when it's complete.



PS: Most of this information is under 'issues' and 'ideas' in the
www.debian.org/ddp pages but it's been a long time and the current policy
has not  changed for a long time.

-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux avalon 2.4.18 #1 SMP mié abr 3 12:47:49 CEST 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=es_ES@euro, LC_CTYPE=es_ES@euro

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: