Future of the Packaging Guide

Stefan Potyra sistpoty at ubuntu.com
Mon Sep 24 18:32:45 BST 2007


Am Montag 24 September 2007 15:35:17 schrieb Daniel Holbach:
> Am Samstag, den 22.09.2007, 10:48 +0200 schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
> > that, and users asking questions directly on pages containing
> > controversial content [1], which are left unanswered for a long time. I
> > think this is a real problem, because the document itself looses
> > authority this way.
> As I proposed in the thread, I think we can address the problem by
> tagging pages or abstracts of pages and have regular Doc Days or reviews
> of them on ubuntu-motu-mentors at .

Not too sure if these would really solve/levy the situation. I guess many of 
the MOTU oldtimers, who know this stuff by heart might not be interested too 
much in writing/updating documentation (only guessing taking myself as an 
example) and the newcomers might not know subtle differences or the reasons 
for different packaging stuff. However I guess we won't find this out, until 
we try it.

> > Anyway, I think especially in the packaging guide, we'll potentially get
> > quite some controversial topic, since there are over 1000 Debian
> > Maintainers out there, most of them packaging software in subtle
> > different ways. If all was in a wiki like proposed, I see a big problem
> > for the quality of the document.
> SVN and/or bzr results in less contributors. Do you think that or a more
> rigorous access control to the documentation is going to help with the
> problem of - granted - confusion over diverse packaging techniques?

Yes and no. Yes, because a more rigorous access control means also, that 
somebody needs to do reviews as otherwise no new documentation could be 
added. It thus helps that the packaging guide is kind of "maintained", and 
could be more consistent.

No, because the tool of choice (wiki or bzr) doesn't force the process to 
evolve. I.e. having someone (or a team, or other means like your suggestion) 
to get the packaging guide maintained is not bound to either wiki or bzr. 

Using bzr hence only gives a little bit of a direction more towards 
maintenance compared to the wiki.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20070924/368b305a/attachment.pgp 

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list