discuss: Thread: TLDP in Linux distros

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Hello All,

So TLDP is not in every Linux Distribution.  We should ask them why and
get them to include our docs, no?

For this, we need:

- - Contact addresses for each distro that does not ship us
- - draft mail
- - somebody to follow up on this

Who can do this?  (I can but I am already too busy as it is, and this is
bound to add some extra hours of work, so please excuse me.)


Tille.

- --
Machtelt Garrels                ####@####.####
Review Coordinator    	 	http://www.tldp.org/authors/

My Penguin, my freedom.         http://tille.xalasys.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDKB0rsIIUbMXbBA8RAq3KAJ9tyHPDSGf283DRaclq9P4RHR50jQCePCMH
N5ikuopgGy891dzNYJTPCbU=
=ji/9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:52:56PM +0000, Machtelt Garrels wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> So TLDP is not in every Linux Distribution.  We should ask them why and
> get them to include our docs, no?
I think Red Hat said why by implying that they were not up-to-date.
> 
> For this, we need:
> 
> - - Contact addresses for each distro that does not ship us

You mean major distros, or at least that should be the first priority.
A few years ago there were over 100 distros.  How does on find out
what distros include ldp documents?  Debian does include ldp docs.
Who else does?

> - - draft mail
> - - somebody to follow up on this
> 
> Who can do this?  (I can but I am already too busy as it is, and this is
> bound to add some extra hours of work, so please excuse me.)
> 
> Tille.
			David Lawyer

> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:52:56PM +0000, Machtelt Garrels wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> So TLDP is not in every Linux Distribution.  We should ask them why and
>> get them to include our docs, no?
> I think Red Hat said why by implying that they were not up-to-date.
>

I dug up some old emails (Fall 2002) that I received while
investigating this  some time ago. The reasoning (direct
from their Errata) is:

   http://www.redhat.com/docs/errata/RHL-7.3-Manual/
   Red Hat Linux 7.3 Documentation Errata
   ...
   x86 Documentation CD
                                                                                   ...
   The LDP HOWTOs and FAQs are not on the Red
   Hat Linux 7.3 Documentation CD. Several
   complaints were received concerning the
   correctness of the LDP documentation as well as
   the difference in procedures between the LDP
   documentation and the official Red Hat Linux
   documentation. Thus, it was decided to no longer
   provide the LDP documentation on the Documentation CD.


So there you have it. I have some follow-on emails with an
individual from RH (that worked on the docs package), where
other factors were stated such as:

- it took a fair bit of work to package the HOWTOs in a
  reasonably sane way
- they had limited space on CD; no room for their own content

But I think the bottom-line came down to the quality of
the LDP docs (at that time), or a lack there-of.

No further work was done on this and the issue was dropped.

Greg / LDP volunteer

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 ####@####.#### wrote:

> - it took a fair bit of work to package the HOWTOs in a
>   reasonably sane way
> - they had limited space on CD; no room for their own content
>
> But I think the bottom-line came down to the quality of
> the LDP docs (at that time), or a lack there-of.
>
> No further work was done on this and the issue was dropped.

So maybe we can take that up again, point out that since that date we have
quality assurance, weeded out the collection, and we could only provide
the text versions of the documents?

And if RedHat does not want them, maybe Fedora does?

Tille.

- --
Machtelt Garrels                ####@####.####
Review Coordinator    	 	http://www.tldp.org/authors/

My Penguin, my freedom.         http://tille.xalasys.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDKWxbsIIUbMXbBA8RAvwcAJ4sBgDxQ4+5KYUKP6Zq2lDgJqg3YgCgrHFe
LgFEdNgbDQ0HJE9PoRN1fas=
=Cvhy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 05/09/15 12:43 +0000, Machtelt Garrels said ...
> 
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 ####@####.#### wrote:
> 
> >
> > No further work was done on this and the issue was dropped.
> 
> And if RedHat does not want them, maybe Fedora does?

Rahul Sundaram [1] indicated that he would be packaging The LDP
collection for Fedora Extras.

[1] http://lists.tldp.org/index.cgi?1:mss:9219:200504:majeealbbhjbfmdfdbkb

Giridhar

-- 
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag | http://www.appaji.net/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:

> On 05/09/15 12:43 +0000, Machtelt Garrels said ...
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 ####@####.#### wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > No further work was done on this and the issue was dropped.
> >
> > And if RedHat does not want them, maybe Fedora does?
>
> Rahul Sundaram [1] indicated that he would be packaging The LDP
> collection for Fedora Extras.
>
> [1] http://lists.tldp.org/index.cgi?1:mss:9219:200504:majeealbbhjbfmdfdbkb

Yes, I saw that, but didn't he merely mean that he started on it and is
now looking for someone else with more time to take over?

Tille.

- --
My Penguin, my freedom.		http://tille.xalasys.com
Books:				http://writers.fultus.com/garrels
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDKXQ6sIIUbMXbBA8RAnH8AJ9cfQW14N6V6iXQXydD1ZVjtXJC+QCgiKYf
qg/YrtF4DvxhGeW1SmWV/qY=
=yVfP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Machtelt Garrels wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On 05/09/15 12:43 +0000, Machtelt Garrels said ...
>>    
>>
>>>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 ####@####.#### wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>No further work was done on this and the issue was dropped.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>And if RedHat does not want them, maybe Fedora does?
>>>      
>>>
>>Rahul Sundaram [1] indicated that he would be packaging The LDP
>>collection for Fedora Extras.
>>
>>[1] http://lists.tldp.org/index.cgi?1:mss:9219:200504:majeealbbhjbfmdfdbkb
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, I saw that, but didn't he merely mean that he started on it and is
>now looking for someone else with more time to take over?
>
Has anyone looked into autopackage?

For Fedora, I planned to do this but ran out of time, If anyone is 
interested, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras. If you need help 
in packaging, check out http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mentors

If you believe, that bundling them as part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 
would be useful, then I would like some more information

* What has improved since the time Red Hat decided to drop the docs?. 
The review process has ensured better quality but the distribution 
differences would probably still cause confusion for customers. From a 
LDP volunteer stand point I would prefer LDP authors continue to 
document the neutral methods wherever possible but wearing a Red Hat ;-) 
, I can see where this would problematic for any particular distribution 
or vendor many of which produce their own documentation.

* Do you want all of the LDP docs packaged into ISO images? Packages 
available in a RHN channel?. Whatever works?

* Do you have a list of the higher quality ones?

* What other things would you prefer to be done?

regards
Rahul


regards
Rahul

tldp howto's seems to be in the SUSE 10.0 (aka opensuse) RC1 
in html form only.

jdd

-- 
pour m'écrire, aller sur:
http://www.dodin.net
http://valerie.dodin.net
http://arvamip.free.fr

On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 19:37 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> >Yes, I saw that, but didn't he merely mean that he started on it and is
> >now looking for someone else with more time to take over?
> >
> Has anyone looked into autopackage?

It may not be viable at the moment, as it's not compatible with
distribution package tools.

This blog post sums thing up, and there's some responses from
autopackage developers in the comments:

http://www.licquia.org/archives/2005/03/27/autopackage-considered-harmful/

The original analysis by Joey Hess is here:

http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/autopackage_designed_by_monkeys-2005-03-28-14-20.html

Stuart Ellis wrote:

>On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 19:37 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>Yes, I saw that, but didn't he merely mean that he started on it and is
>>>now looking for someone else with more time to take over?
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Has anyone looked into autopackage?
>>    
>>
>
>It may not be viable at the moment, as it's not compatible with
>distribution package tools.
>
It doesnt matter much for docs unlike say libraries. All we need is a 
method to copy over a tarball and setup a .desktop file probably for 
easy access to content.  Autopackage is expected to get RPM and later on 
DEB support. I dont particularly care about it but its a choice for the 
LDP docs

regards
Rahul