Bug#147164: www.debian.org: DDP policy is too out of date
[Sorry, I CCed many mailing list. I only read -www and -doc. Please
someone tell me where I should go.]
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:11:30PM +0200, Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pena wrote:
> 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).
How about debian-policy. Or realistically, debian-doc and debian-i18n, etc.
> 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 The current DDP policy is way out of date, this has as a consequence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)
Maybe we should file wishlist bug to the packages who do not use CVS.
So maintainer will at least commit to DDP CVS.
> - how must packages be prepared: one package per document? one for each
> translated version?
Input from i18n folks and solid best practice example is highly
desirable. This needs to be discussed and demonstrated.
> - 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
By hand is absurd. It is too much work.
> - formats (other than HTML) that the document must compile to in order for
> it to be published.
It was technically difficult in potato since pdf and ps sometimes did
not build in non-English environment. But with woody version of
debiandoc-sgml, it should publish html, text, pdf, and ps. Current
practice of SGML.tar shall be depreciated. It shall be CVS or source
deb file. Makefile need to be standardized (at least target names and
way to specify language).
> - where to send bugs related to documentation (to the package? to the
> www site?)
Good point. All DDP page shall indicate where. If CVS only,
debian-doc. If packaged, normal package BTS location. For translated
package, translator also needs informed.
> - 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)
Best practice guide.
> 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.
Please post URL and discuss on debian-doc. As seen on debian-doc
mailing list thread, the maintainer seems to be MIA.
> 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
http://www.debian.org/doc/ddp to be precise :)
> has not changed for a long time.
Reading policy there which I found link first time,
I wonder how can this be so inconsistent with the reality. If we make
updated ddp manual policy, it should be in more obvious location.
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
Osamu Aoki @ Cupertino CA USA
See "Debian reference": http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/
See "User's Guide": http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/users-guide/
"Debian reference" Project at: http://qref.sf.net
I welcome your constructive criticisms and corrections.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com