On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 04:42:17PM +0200, Sylvain Beucler wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 02:34:45PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote: > > Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 00:52:05 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> http://women.debian.org/wiki/English/MaintainerScripts states, > > >>while discussing the purging of a fully installed package > > >>("Removing and Purging", Removal+Purge of foo (Installed)), that > > > > > > This is important information I would never have found due to the lack > > > of knowledge that the Debian Women project has her own wiki. > > > > > > May I ask why information this important is not on the main Debian > > > wiki, wiki.debian.org? > > > > Or why it is in a Wiki at all? A wiki is fine for collecting > > information with input from many people. But once it's settled, and > > this one mainly seems to be, I think it should be integrated in the > > existing infrastructure, e.g. the developers' reference. > > Or to put it the other way, why isn't the developer's reference a wiki? :) > > I think it's more likely to evolve that way. > > -- Hi Sylvain, I think that is a great idea but I'd have a few caveats: what if someone put malicous code in a page (e.g. the equivilant of 'rm -rf /') and a user damaged their system by running it? The current process is not as easily updated but its has a high quality review which is good. I'd hope for a solution that lets people add new content but maybe have it not show up immediatley and have it reviewed like 'sponsored uploads' thus ensuring that it meets Debian standards. IIRC there are folks who are responsible for Debian web content and Debian user documentation -- maybe have them involved? cheers, Kev -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com | | `. `' Operating System | go to counter.li.org and | | `- http://www.debian.org/ | be counted! #238656 | | my keysever: pgp.mit.edu | my NPO: cfsg.org |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
