discuss: TLDP in Linux distros
Subject:
Re: [discuss] TLDP in Linux distros
From:
Rahul Sundaram ####@####.####
Date:
16 Sep 2005 08:27:13 -0000
Message-Id: <432A81DE.9010709@redhat.com>
Machtelt Garrels wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>
>
>>>I've used it to make RPMs from simple source compiles, and it worked OK
>>>- I haven't tried the options to produce packages for multiple formats.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Yeah someone needs to look into that and other options
>>
>>
>>
>
>Why not contact the responsibles for each distro that does not ship our
>docs and find out from them directly what package format they want,
>instead of spending time trying to guess?
>
>
Distributions would of course prefer their native packaging formats
which is available from
http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=packagemanagement. What am I
pointing is the potential ability of LDP to provide autopackages or
checkinstalled packages for distribution on tldp.org instead of tarballs
and online links and increase the effectiveness of the integration
rather than pursuing distributions to get the content into their
repositories
>And we need to continue to build the list of distros that should be
>contacted. So far we have only this info:
>
>shipping TLDP | Not shipping TLDP
>- --------------------------------|------------------
>Debian | Fedora
>SuSE 10 | RedHat
>
>
Distributions might not ship all of the documents.
>According to distrowatch.com, the top-10 Linux distributions of the moment
>are Ubuntu, Mandriva, SuSE, Fedora, MEPIS, KNOPPIX, Debian, Damn Small,
>Gentoo and Slackware. I think we need at least to contact these.
>
>
Distrowatch list is based on the number of people who visit the
distribution webpage. While it shows a interest level it is not
necessary a good estimate of the user base. Not a bad thing per see but
its good to be aware of this before contacting the above list
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=faq
regards
Rahul
