On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 09:04:11PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > Well, perhaps just "Debian Reference" would be suitable. It's really not > quick if it's got a larger index than some other documents have contents :) ... > I said attempts, not good descriptive manuals <shrug> What we currently have > is quite inferior.
I am flattered. But authoritative name such as "Debian Reference" bears big responsibility. (I am scared.) If no one objects, I will change its title as you indicated or to the any good alternative name before asking some one to package this as .deb for Debian. After all, Josip, you are a doc-debian package other key documentation maintainer. > > Informative documents for specific topics: > > * Debian META Manual > > Oh, I didn't know this was being updated. "Jul 9 1998" (For English original) I hardly call it "updated". > It seems as if it replaces the www.debian.org/doc/ddp pages, and I > don't see much point in that... That is true. But only if updated :) > And the name "META Manual" is bad, most people won't understand what's it > about it instantly. In plain words of a non-native person, this is simply "Introduction to the Debian Documentation". > > Questionable contents: > > --- Keep these just as archives and no links from front pages: > > I'd prefer to keep them listed but clearly marked as bad. I agree. http://www.debian.org/doc/ddp should not contain direct links to these but just a single link to the archived document lists. Regards, Osamu PS: I CC this to sourceforge.net ML so translators and proof readers can be updated about situation. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> @ Cupertino, CA USA +
