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

Re: mini-HOWTO

On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, David Lawyer wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 07:34:30AM +0000, Terry Dawson wrote:
> > "der.hans" wrote:
> > 
> > > Maybe we should copy the Debian model more
> > > closely, e.g. assign LDP maintainers who take the upstream docs and get it
> > > to fit LDP wishes. If the upstream doc format really conflicts it'd suck,
> > > but for most cases it wouldn't be bad. As in the Debian model, the
> > > upstream maintainer could also be the LDP maintainer. This gets someone
> > > form LDP to be working more closely with upstream maintainers or hopefully
> > > gets upstream maintainers to work more closely with the LDP :).
> > 
> > It's a nice idea. One of the big advantages of this is that if the LDP
> > sets up a bug reporting system the maintainer of the document can feed
> > collated/vetted patches to the upstream author for introduction into the
> > mainstream, significantly reducing the work that the primary author has
> > to do.
> Since LDP doesn't deal with documentation on specific software, there
> just aren't any "upstream" authors.  Would we try to recruit upstream

Ah, but there are :). The current authors are the upstream authors. The
LDP would provide editors/packagers to put the info in the format the LDP
desires. In many cases the upstream author would also be the packager. In
many cases this would probably be more pain than it's worth, e.g. some
warez d00d does his doks in neon html with images of some spiked
font... :). In the context of the author to editor relationship discussed
earlier the editor could easily be the LDP packager.

> authors who would give their docs both to LDP and other organizations?
> Wouldn't it be simpler the way it works now?

Yup, but it doesn't necessarily make it easy for everyone to submit

> I would rather keep the present direct contact system rather than a
> bug reporting system.  Often feedback is neither a bug nor a
> suggestion.  It's a question.  If this question was not answered in
> the HOWTO (or well enough explained), then the HOWTO may need to be
> modified.  If you have a bug tracking system, will questions be
> allowed?  

I think so. Those questions could be used to build faqs or for figuring
out what categories to index stuff under, e.g. if the RAID howto gets tons
of question bugs about why RAID doesn't work in dist y ver x, then we know
to put an entry under dist->y->ver x->problems->RAID or whatever path. The
questions could be great feedback on how to organize the LDP web site and
make info easier to find.



# +++++++++++=================================+++++++++++ #
# The Linux for YOUR Business seminar, Feb 8th in Phoenix #
#           http://www.excelco.com/seminar3.htm           #
#                  der.hans@LuftHans.com                  #
#             http://home.pages.de/~lufthans/             #
#          Science is magic explained. - der.hans         #
# ===========+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=========== #

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