discuss: GnuMed Doc
Subject:
Re: GnuMed Doc
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
4 Aug 2002 04:01:03 -0000
Message-Id: <20020803210143.A1173@lafn.org>
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 11:42:50AM -0400, David Merrill wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Friday 02 August 2002 09:27, Charles Curley wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 01:06:26AM -0400, ####@####.#### wrote:
> > > Whoops, here's the attachment. Sorry all.
> > > Please let me know what to correct.
> > > I will need to get the postgresql stuff all together.
> > > thanks,
> > > G
> >
> > This is a good start on a document that GNUmed will probably need, but
> > I have to wonder if it should be an LDP document. It is basically an
> > installation manual for GNUmed, and much better than many I've seen
> > (and not seen). Perhaps it should be included in the GNUmed package
> > instead?
>
> afaiac, it's a Good Thing for the LDP to publish this kind of
> documentation. Once we go onto Lampadas, it will be easy for us to
> "mirror" documentation that is published elsewhere, so projects that
> maintain their own internal documentation can easily have it published on
> the LDP as well as included in their projects. Hopefully, someday the LDP
> will be the place everybody submits their docs for publication, the way
> they submit their software to Freshmeat.
The more documentation on LDP, the more work there is to do to review it
and check that it's up-to-date. Thus I don't think we should take on
additional work for documentation that should be supplied by a package,
unless it's not easy to put it in the package, etc.
There are a number of cases where I think that LDP documentation for
individual packages and programs are needed. One is where the
documentation is tutorial in nature. Another is where it is different
in style and scope from what is in the package and the package doesn't
want to include it. Another, of course, is where it's broader in scope
than just the package/program.
I also think that anyone that has created good documentation about a
package that wants to have it published by the LDP, should be allowed to
do so. But in many cases we should suggest that they also try to get it
into the package and that they remove it from LDP if they are not going
to keep us supplied the latest versions.
David Lawyer
> I think we should encourage more of this.
I'm not so sure.
