On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:34:25PM -0800, Osamu Aoki 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.)
Don't be :) It's really good that someone has taken interest in doing this. It really needed/needs to be done. > 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. So, let's make a reference/ directory in the DDP CVS tree, and start merging the quickref and the generic parts of faq in there. > After all, Josip, you are a doc-debian package other key documentation > maintainer. Now you're making me feel important :o) I just happen to be one of the few remaining semi-active documentation people in Debian... <shrug> > > > 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". Ah, two things confused me -- I saw it has contents instead of being just planned as the DDP index indicates, and the web version included a 2002 date so I thought it was being 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 :) So, this predates the DDP web pages as they are now and is made obsolete by them. The /doc/ web page was also redone recently (by yours truly) and it's no longer as useless. Therefore the meta manual has no use other than being available offline -- and it's not being made available offline. > > 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". Yeah. It should have been named like that from the start... but never mind. > > > 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. That would work. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
