Re: Reviving the Debian FAQ
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 02:01:48AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > > The Debian FAQ [0] has been, unfortunately, unmaintained for quite some time > and needs a thorough review. True. > I updated information in the FAQ in preparation for the sarge release when I > noticed that it was out of date and incomplete [1]. After the release > I've been fixing some other obsolete sections and fixing some of > its long-standing bugs, uploading new revisions of the doc-debian package > in the process. Thanks. > It would be really great if other DDs could review the FAQ fully and > point out: > > a- missing FAQ items, that is, things that people commonly ask about Debian >that are not there and we should write about. > > b- obsolete FAQ items, i.e., items in the FAQ that are no longe relevant and >should be removed or rewritten. > > c- incorrect FAQ items, i.e., items that should be rewritten or fixed because >they contain innacurate statements. I think key for maintainable document is limitted scope. For things like "How to become DD?", pointer to NM page will be better. In the same thought, remove overlap with Debian Reference in terms of archive structure and deprecated package management tool such as dpkg-ftp. I think pointer to Debian Reference Chapter 2 will be good on those. > several reasons why I believe this document should be kept up to date: it's > included in the official Debian CDs (it's one of the few documents provided > there), it's included in all the official Debian mirrors (under /doc/), > and many users (well, those that RTFM, that is) might go read it since > it's listed as the first "User document" currently in our web page. Yes. That is why this FAQ should limit its scope to the narrowest one and leave most of the descriptive contents to other places. Good luck. PS: Maybe we need to discuss this in debian-doc. How to recommend user which distribution to use stable/testing/unstable, is touchy issue.
Re: Reviving the Debian FAQ
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: one use? I wrote an FAQ on that and is currently hosted at http://people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/debian_choosing_distribution.html It would be nice if you can include this in the Debian FAQ. Needless to say, I would be happy to hear comments on the above document. Could you please license that FAQ with a license compatible (preferably the same) aas the onee the current FAQ uses? That would allowo me to freely copy & paste content there (and changeit to sgml, etc.) Hi Javier I have now licensed the above FAQ under GPL. I have included the copyright notice at the end of the document. hth raju
Re: Reviving the Debian FAQ
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 07:22:44PM -0400, Kamaraju Kusumanchi wrote: > How can I do that? Are there some instructions that I need to follow or > just say in the document that others are free to copy the contents? I am > sorry but I am very new to licensing and stuff like that. Just add a license blurb to the document (header or footer, your choice). You can reuse the blurb in the index of the FAQ or the Securing Debian Manual: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/index.en.html http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/index.en.html Which is basicly the GPL but applying it to documentation, for more information see: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html and http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html Regards Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Reviving the Debian FAQ
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:52:01AM -0400, Kamaraju Kusumanchi wrote: > Miles Bader wrote: > >But the sentence > >"Testing is intended for Debian developers. If you are not a Debian > >developer, then install unstable as opposed to testing" is nonsensical; > >just get rid of it. > This has been corrected now. The corresponding question and answer are > given below so that the experts can offer their opinion. Your comments > are most welcome. > 10. OK! so far so good. Could you tell me whether to install testing or > unstable? > This is a rather subjective issue. There is no perfect answer but only a > "wise guess" could be made while deciding between unstable and testing. > My personal order of preference is Stable, Unstable and Testing. The > issue is like this: > Stable is rock solid. It does not break. > Testing breaks less often than Unstable. But when it breaks, it takes a > long time for things to get rectified. Sometimes this could be days and > it could be months at times. But in unstable things get rectified within > couple of days. Wouldn't it be a good idea to qualify exactly what *kinds* of breakage you're talking about here? At any given time, there are a large number of packages in unstable that contain RC bugs that keep them (or particular versions of them) out of testing. Some of these are reported in the BTS, and some of them aren't. You can use apt-listbugs to tell you about the first class of these bugs before you install the package, and the second class of bugs are normally those that prevent a package's dependencies from being installable *at all*, but these are both still issues that the user of unstable should be aware of and willing to accept. Furthermore, the fact that maintainers upload directly to unstable means that bugs there *can* be fixed within a couple of days; it does not ensure that they *are* fixed that quickly. Feel free to check the BTS for evidence of packages with longstanding RC bugs in unstable. > But there are times when tracking testing would be beneficial as opposed > to unstable. One such situation occurred to me due to the gcc transition > from gcc3 to gcc4. I was trying to install labplot package on a machine > tracking unstable and it could not be installed in unstable as some of > its dependencies have undergone gcc4 transition and some have not. But > the package in testing is installable on a testing machine as the gcc4 > transitioned packages have not "trickled down" to testing. Yes, this kind of situation happens to some subset of packages in unstable *constantly*, unless there is a freeze in progress. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Reviving the Debian FAQ
Miles Bader wrote: But the sentence "Testing is intended for Debian developers. If you are not a Debian developer, then install unstable as opposed to testing" is nonsensical; just get rid of it. -miles This has been corrected now. The corresponding question and answer are given below so that the experts can offer their opinion. Your comments are most welcome. 10. OK! so far so good. Could you tell me whether to install testing or unstable? This is a rather subjective issue. There is no perfect answer but only a "wise guess" could be made while deciding between unstable and testing. My personal order of preference is Stable, Unstable and Testing. The issue is like this: Stable is rock solid. It does not break. Testing breaks less often than Unstable. But when it breaks, it takes a long time for things to get rectified. Sometimes this could be days and it could be months at times. But in unstable things get rectified within couple of days. But there are times when tracking testing would be beneficial as opposed to unstable. One such situation occurred to me due to the gcc transition from gcc3 to gcc4. I was trying to install labplot package on a machine tracking unstable and it could not be installed in unstable as some of its dependencies have undergone gcc4 transition and some have not. But the package in testing is installable on a testing machine as the gcc4 transitioned packages have not "trickled down" to testing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reviving the Debian FAQ
Kamaraju Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The document does not endorse using unstable. It clearly encourages to > use stable. But if one wants to choose between unstable and testing then > it says to go with unstable. It's fine to give reasons why unstable might be preferable given such a choice (though your general tone seems somewhat unfairly biased against testing -- you make it sound scarier that it really is). But the sentence "Testing is intended for Debian developers. If you are not a Debian developer, then install unstable as opposed to testing" is nonsensical; just get rid of it. -miles -- 97% of everything is grunge -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reviving the Debian FAQ
Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Kamaraju Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I object to the notion that | Testing is intended for Debian developers. If you are not a Debian | developer, then install unstable as opposed to testing. which rather permeates the document. I read that somewhere in one of the official Debian documentation and just copied it there. But I did a google search upon seeing Henning's email and all I could find are links to my webpage. Anyway thanks for pointing that out. I will be changing it over this weekend. In principle testing is just a staging area for the next stable version. Not many people *need* to run it, but it has been found to be useful for users who want newer software than stable has yet don't want to risk the breakage-of-the-day in unstable. There's even said to be security support these days :-) Yes. I have not updated the document after the announcement regarding testing-security-support was made. Thanks for pointing it out. I don't think we as a project should endorse documentation that encourages running unstable. Our official attitude should be that unstable is only for people who want to be our guinea pigs. People who run it without wanting to be guinea pigs nevertheless become ones, and when things break for them, they don't get any sympathy. The document does not endorse using unstable. It clearly encourages to use stable. But if one wants to choose between unstable and testing then it says to go with unstable. Even then I warn the user sufficiently enough (I think). raju -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reviving the Debian FAQ
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 10:39:37PM -0400, Kamaraju Kusumanchi wrote: I am taking the liberty to write this even though I am not a DD. Hope Well, I said DDs in my mail because i was mailing -devel, but the document is open to contributions from anyone, just like anything in Debian :-) Thanks for the encouraging words. one use? I wrote an FAQ on that and is currently hosted at http://people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/debian_choosing_distribution.html It would be nice if you can include this in the Debian FAQ. Needless to say, I would be happy to hear comments on the above document. Could you please license that FAQ with a license compatible (preferably the same) aas the onee the current FAQ uses? That would allowo me to freely copy & paste content there (and changeit to sgml, etc.) How can I do that? Are there some instructions that I need to follow or just say in the document that others are free to copy the contents? I am sorry but I am very new to licensing and stuff like that. thanks raju -- Kamaraju S Kusumanchi Graduate Student, MAE Cornell University http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reviving the Debian FAQ
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 10:48:07AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I've fixed some of a), b) or c) with the help of Santiago Vila who is doing > > the Spanish translation but more peer review is needed here. > > Note that the document at the official URL you quote is probably > obsolete; it identifies itself as being a February 2003 version. FWIW, that has been fixed now and the document at www.debian.org is now in sync with the CVS. Regards Javier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reviving the Debian FAQ
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 10:39:37PM -0400, Kamaraju Kusumanchi wrote: > I am taking the liberty to write this even though I am not a DD. Hope Well, I said DDs in my mail because i was mailing -devel, but the document is open to contributions from anyone, just like anything in Debian :-) > one use? I wrote an FAQ on that and is currently hosted at > > http://people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/debian_choosing_distribution.html > > It would be nice if you can include this in the Debian FAQ. Needless to > say, I would be happy to hear comments on the above document. Could you please license that FAQ with a license compatible (preferably the same) aas the onee the current FAQ uses? That would allowo me to freely copy & paste content there (and changeit to sgml, etc.) Regards Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Reviving the Debian FAQ
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:13:23AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I object to the notion that > > | Testing is intended for Debian developers. If you are not a Debian > > | developer, then install unstable as opposed to testing. > > which rather permeates the document. > Yeah I agree, that's pretty wacky notion. Regardless of testing's > "official" purpose, it's proven a great and solid distro for end users. It's not even official -- just wacky. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Reviving the Debian FAQ
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I object to the notion that > > | Testing is intended for Debian developers. If you are not a Debian > | developer, then install unstable as opposed to testing. > > which rather permeates the document. Yeah I agree, that's pretty wacky notion. Regardless of testing's "official" purpose, it's proven a great and solid distro for end users. -miles -- If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. [George Carlin] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reviving the Debian FAQ
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 03:01, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: --cut-- > Yes, I know there are some documents which are better than the FAQ for some > issues (such as the Installation Manual or the Debian reference). But there > are several reasons why I believe this document should be kept up to date: > it's included in the official Debian CDs (it's one of the few documents > provided there), it's included in all the official Debian mirrors (under > /doc/), and many users (well, those that RTFM, that is) might go read it > since it's listed as the first "User document" currently in our web page. It would be nice if anything under d.o/doc/ (including the faq) is indexed on a daily [weekly?] basis by some text search engine like namazu2 [name other options here...]. The Debian CD/DVD faq should also join the party [1]. Having a search function for the documentation will help users get their answers faster than before and will save lots of redundant questions to the mailing lists IMHO. [1] Please add that reply [2] to the CD/DVD faq since it appear to be the most popular asker these days. The google-bait left there is also a good guess to stress that enough ;-) [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-cd/2005/08/msg00103.html -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reviving the Debian FAQ
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 10:48:07AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I've fixed some of a), b) or c) with the help of Santiago Vila who is doing > > the Spanish translation but more peer review is needed here. > > Note that the document at the official URL you quote is probably > obsolete; it identifies itself as being a February 2003 version. Hmm.. there might have been issues rebuilding it. Based on http://www-master.debian.org/build-logs/ddp/make.log it looks like the Spanish version broke it. > There text in the doc-debian package in unstable/testing appears to be > newer. Does that include your recent fixes? Not all of them, byhand handling takes time, to retrieve the sources please use ':pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs/debian-doc/ddp/manuals.sgml/faq' I will try to fix the building process right away. Regards Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Reviving the Debian FAQ
Scripsit Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I've fixed some of a), b) or c) with the help of Santiago Vila who is doing > the Spanish translation but more peer review is needed here. Note that the document at the official URL you quote is probably obsolete; it identifies itself as being a February 2003 version. There text in the doc-debian package in unstable/testing appears to be newer. Does that include your recent fixes? -- Henning Makholm "This imposes the restriction on any procedure statement that the kind and type of each actual parameter be compatible with the kind and type of the corresponding formal parameter."
Re: Reviving the Debian FAQ
Scripsit Kamaraju Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I am taking the liberty to write this even though I am not a DD. Hope > you would not mind. Anyone who has relevant points to make are welcome on the -devel lists. Only DDs can upload packages and vote, but that is about it. > http://people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/debian_choosing_distribution.html > It would be nice if you can include this in the Debian FAQ. Needless > to say, I would be happy to hear comments on the above document. I object to the notion that | Testing is intended for Debian developers. If you are not a Debian | developer, then install unstable as opposed to testing. which rather permeates the document. In principle testing is just a staging area for the next stable version. Not many people *need* to run it, but it has been found to be useful for users who want newer software than stable has yet don't want to risk the breakage-of-the-day in unstable. There's even said to be security support these days :-) I don't think we as a project should endorse documentation that encourages running unstable. Our official attitude should be that unstable is only for people who want to be our guinea pigs. People who run it without wanting to be guinea pigs nevertheless become ones, and when things break for them, they don't get any sympathy. -- Henning Makholm "Det er jo svært at vide noget når man ikke ved det, ikke?"
Re: Reviving the Debian FAQ
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: It would be really great if other DDs could review the FAQ fully and point out: a- missing FAQ items, that is, things that people commonly ask about Debian that are not there and we should write about. I am taking the liberty to write this even though I am not a DD. Hope you would not mind. I read d-u on a daily basis and the frequent question there used to be which distribution stable/testing/sid should one use? I wrote an FAQ on that and is currently hosted at http://people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/debian_choosing_distribution.html It would be nice if you can include this in the Debian FAQ. Needless to say, I would be happy to hear comments on the above document. regards raju
