On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 02:26:16AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 06:37:36PM -0700, Chris Tillman wrote: > > I was discussing bash's response of 'command not found' in bug 106170 > > with Matthias Klose and Matt Zimmerman. My idea was that bash could > > make a reference to dhelp to give new users a place to start when they > > are just beginning. But dhelp is not installed as standard. > > > > Matthias' suggestion was even better, I think: point to a text > > document somewhere that gives a lottle bootstrapping information for > > users just getting their feet wet in *nix. > > > > Since doc-linux-text is installed by default in new installations, and > > since this qualifies as linux doc (text), I think it should go in your > > package. > > I figured I ought to run this past debian-doc first. Is doc-linux-text > the right place for this? The obvious alternative is doc-debian. I'm not > necessarily opposed to this proposal (nor am I trying to get rid of a > bug without doing anything!), but doc-linux's remit is to provide the > documentation from the Linux Documentation Project, not to be a general > repository for system documentation, and I would like some wider > discussion before extending this too much.
Yes, that sounds right. > Also note that your documentation would be equally useful for new Debian > GNU/Hurd (and possibly Debian GNU/BSD in the future?) users, although at > the moment such new users are likely to be fairly technically competent > already. > > > /usr/share/doc/doc-linux-text/README-commands.txt > > > > This is a jumping-off reference point for new users who may be > > completely unfamiliar with Linux commands. It does not contain all > > the information you need about using the Linux console, but instead > > just gives you enough information to get started finding the > > information you need. > > Are you sure that all this wouldn't fit better in a proper HOWTO or > mini-HOWTO? The existing getting-started-type documents are slightly > less of an introduction from scratch than this, true, but that's not to > say that an even more newbie-friendly document like this in the LDP > collection would be a bad idea: imagine the Debian-Introduction > mini-HOWTO, for example. I would then be happy to refer to that > specially from /usr/share/doc/doc-linux-text/README.Debian, and you'd > still have the document installed by default. This makes a lot of sense. I'm willing to initiate that. > > info [subject] > > A lot of Debian Linux documentation > > Pet peeve: I think our documentation should generally use the correct > name for the distribution, i.e. "Debian GNU/Linux". > > > (I think it would be better to add a shell script named something like > > helpcmds instead of making the user type this. > > doc-linux currently includes no binaries or scripts, but I suppose > /usr/bin/debian-intro or something would be possible. Comments? > > I think this is a good document, and that it would be useful to have > installed on standard systems. I'm just not entirely sure what the right > place for it is. > > To debian-doc: please copy all followups to bug #128852. > > Thanks, > > -- > Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- *------v--------- Installing Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 --------v------* | <http://www.debian.org/releases/woody/installmanual> | | debian-imac (potato): <http://debian-imac.sourceforge.net> | | Chris Tillman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | May the Source be with you | *----------------------------------------------------------------*
