-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 15 Jun 1997, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > > > I have another policy issue which is related to topic 11 (see below). > > > > The current layout of Info entries in the main Info menu (in the file > > /usr/info/dir) looks rather messy. I found the following "descrepencies": > > > > - not all packages are placed in an appropriate section > > - the descriptions are not formatted consequently > > - some sections are somewhat large (this is personal) > > - some descriptions are somewhat large (this is personal too) > > > > I believe we can do better. Therefor, I propose an extension/change to > > Section 3.2.3 of the Debian Policy Manual: > > Great! Thanks for the proposal. A few points though... > > > - During install of an Info documents you MUST specify a section. > > Preferably use the section the package belongs to in the Debian > > distribution. As a starting point the "dir" file in the base-files > > package could already contain these sections, albeit empty. > > > > We could also use a different, sometimes more logical grouping. E.g., > > I'm using the following sections for the development packages: > > > > - compilers > > - linkers > > - interpreters > > - generators (i.e. bison, flex, gperf, etc.) > > - libraries > > - development tools (i.e. make, gdb, etc.) > > - internals (i.e. gdb-internals, stabs, etc.) > > > > If the Info doc has a lot of subentries, make a separate section > > for it, as has been done for the GNU file, text, shell, and shar > > utilities. > > I suggest that we define several sections which should be used. If someone > has an info file which does not fit anywhere, he has to ask on > debian-devel for it and it will eventually be added to the Policy Manual. > I completely agree! > The current structure (of packages installed on my system) is: > > Miscellaneous > Development > Document Preparation > Information > Emacs > Programming > teTeX > Graphics > Games > General Commands > > Note, that only "Miscellaneous" has a colon (:) after it. This should be > changed... > On my system there's also "Networking", "Communication", and "Console utilities". This made me think about using the package organization in the distribution as a starting point. > Note, that AFAIK install-info automatically removes empty sections from > the "info dir". I think this is actually very good. I don't want to have > all those empty section in the dir file of the base system. > The removal of empty sections can be controlled by command line options (see the man page for an excellent explanation). I agree empty sections don't look good. > > - Start the description at a to-be-determined fixed position, e.g. > > first line at position 41 and second and subsequent lines at position > > 43. This unclutters the layout, but the positions should be such > > to leave enough room for a short, one-line, to-the-point decription. > > Can't we simply change "install-info" to do this automatically? This would > make it a lot easier... > I was thinking the same and see three possibilities to handle this: 1. using install-info directly with correct command line options 2. using a script (implicit call of install-info using the default positions, possibly with override if absolutely necessary) 3. hard-coded in install-info (i.e. change current defaults values) Option 3 is the most easiest, since it only requires the Info package maintainer to handle things. Options 1 and 2 require all packages containing an Info file to be updated, either to call the script or to change the currently used command line. Option 2 is in fact the soft-coded version of option 3. Initially, I would say we go for option 3, since I assume the Info package is not that often affected by a new upstream version. However, handling the empty section removal may make option 2 more suitable, unless we hard code that in install-info itself too. > > - Instead of using the upstream provided description, provide an own > > one-line one which fits on the same line as the menu entry. A three > > line description for awk may be nice but clutters the layout, e.g. > > Correct. (For example, the "Make" entry is _way_ too long.) > > > In the light of topic 11 the above may be not that important anymore, > > but if we plan to keep Info docs around (I have not heard otherwise > > yet) I believe we should discuss the above. > > I'm sure the info docs will be available in the future! The question of > topic 11 was which format the .deb's should ship: > > - only info; html in extra .deb > - only html; info in extra .deb > - html _and_ info > > > I was also wondering whether we plan to organize the documentation > > under dwww in a way similar to the Info docs (sectioning, layout, > > etc.). Anybody some thoughts on this? > > I think Jim was working on such an enhancement for dwww. We should ask him > when his is back. > > > Cheers, > > Chris > > -- Christian Schwarz > Do you know [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > Debian GNU/Linux? [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Visit PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 > BA > http://www.debian.org http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/ > > > > Greetings, Ardo - -- Ardo van Rangelrooij home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] home page: http://www.tip.nl/users/ardo.van.rangelrooij PGP fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBM6cAnj6XMRfcxSjpAQG47wQAllRE87lxZ44vymDoilm2XlpK1SjrgTXr nGAa9J1emy3+V3Qln9M8M1hHt+h/R9qAdEYUQqJb6bbfRhyGZ9YoZJvu6xAisS0i T6kDMELtmc/YxXzNHSD2GYwHyR7Bx6Ooti5O+mhVhMjdLCZ8Eyl0yaCUATMzOxs9 +tqXLXlfMcs= =TxBH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
