Re: debian-faq: Patch3 to update outdated information
Hi, Justin B Rye wrote: > Holger Wansing wrote: > > now the third patch to address more invasive things: > > > > - I have updated info on release architectures > > - I removed/changed paragraphs about floppies (still someone using them? > > :-) ) > > - I changed the description of apt (copied from official package-description > > from packages.debian.org) > > - I added a mention of UTF-8 > > > > - Should we remove docu on dselect? (outdated tool) > > That would also mean the removal of docu about dpkg-mountable. > > dpkg-mountable was a Debian package up until 2.2 "potato", but as far > as I can see this information was stale by 3.0 "woody" in 2002! > > > - Should we no longer mention the outdated repository-howto? > > - What about the modconf package/mechanism? Still required? Still existing? > > The package ceased to exist in wheezy, but I think it had been largely > redundant for a while before that. Ok, so we can safely remove that. > > A patch as a proposal is attached. > > > > > > Review and comments are here *really* wanted! > > Comments below; meanwhile I should go and have a look at the full FAQ. > Yes, its answers badly need revising; but in principle we ought to be > doing something much more invasive, replacing Questions that are no > longer Frequently Asked. Removing some of that questions would be good indeed. > > [...] > > +++ customizing.sgml(Arbeitskopie) > > @@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ > >without compromising security? > > > > Many device files in the /dev directory belong to some > > -predefined groups. For example, /dev/fd0 belongs to the > > -floppy group, and /dev/dsp belongs to the > > +predefined groups. For example, /dev/sr0 belongs to the > > +cdrom group, and /dev/dsp belongs to the > > audio group. Yes, /dev/dsp is not existing on my Jessie system. So we could use "/dev/sda" instead, as owned by group "disk". > I think /dev/dsp is a relic from the days before ALSA; these days it's > /dev/snd/*, and the access rights are increasingly handled via ACLs > managed by logind. That should be rephrased then, to document the new behaviour. Has someone with the relevant knowledge a small proposal for this? (I'm lacking knowledge here, sorry.) > > +++ ftparchives.sgml(Arbeitskopie) > > @@ -426,4 +426,6 @@ > > Instructions on how to do this are given in the (obsolete) > name="Debian Repository > > HOWTO" > > id="http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/repository-howto/repository-howto";>. > > +# Should this link to outdated docu be removed? Or is it better, to keep > > it, > > +# since outdated docu is still better than nothing? > > It occurs to me that all this advice pre-dates the Debian Wiki. > Maybe there should be a pointer in that direction instead. Perhaps https://wiki.debian.org/HowToSetupADebianRepository would be a possible target? > > > Index: getting.sgml > > === > > --- getting.sgml(Revision 11091) > > +++ getting.sgml(Arbeitskopie) > > @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ > > the > id="http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/";>. > > > > -Where/how can I get the Debian installation disks? > > +Where/how can I get the Debian installation disks? > > The problem with "disks" is that we're now using it mostly as a > coverterm for optical media (e.g. compact discs) and SSDs (e.g. USB > thumbdrives), and neither of those are technically "disks"! > > We could say "installation media", but then there's a danger of > singular agreement problems. Maybe use "installation images"? > [...] > > Are there any alternative strategies > > for booting > > the system installer? > > > > Yes. Apart from CD or DVD, you can install Debian GNU/Linux by booting > > from > > -floppy disks, USB memory stick, directly from hard disk, or using TFTP net > > +USB memory stick, directly from hard disk, or using TFTP net > > booting. For installing on multiple computers it's possible to do fully > > automatic installations. NB: not all methods are supported by all computer > > architectures. Once the installer has booted, the rest of the system can > > be > > (I can personally vouch for the fact that it's still possible to do > Jessie installs off 2GB PATA hard disks and even iOmega Zip disks!) Ok, but I would value this as a corner case, so not mention in the FAQ. > > Index: kernel.sgml > [...] > > +### There is no package "modconf" in stable anymore. > > +### Is there still such mechanism in Debian, or is it no longer needed? > > + > > I don't think I'd used it since the days of ISA network cards; the > idea seems to be that it was made redundant by autodetection, and then > thrown out during the switch from module-init-tools to kmod. Ok, so drop it. > [...] > > Index: pkg_basics.sgml > > === > [...] > > @@ -360,8 +360,7 @@ > > > > > These "want" flags tell what the user wanted to do with a pac
Re: debian-faq: Patch3 to update outdated information
Holger Wansing wrote: >> Comments below; meanwhile I should go and have a look at the full FAQ. >> Yes, its answers badly need revising; but in principle we ought to be >> doing something much more invasive, replacing Questions that are no >> longer Frequently Asked. > > Removing some of that questions would be good indeed. Or indeed adding new ones. Newcomers probably have questions these days about things the FAQ is too old to know anything about, like systemd, or wifi firmware, or multiarch, or even Ubuntu. >> I think /dev/dsp is a relic from the days before ALSA; these days it's >> /dev/snd/*, and the access rights are increasingly handled via ACLs >> managed by logind. > > Yes, /dev/dsp is not existing on my Jessie system. > So we could use "/dev/sda" instead, as owned by group "disk". Yes, that example still works, but it would be unusual to add a user to that group... is "cdrom" still useful, perhaps? > That should be rephrased then, to document the new behaviour. > Has someone with the relevant knowledge a small proposal for this? > (I'm lacking knowledge here, sorry.) The trouble is, systemd has essentially deprecated all the advice given in this section. Mind you, I don't really understand why the FAQ was explaining it, since it's in no way specific to Debian or even Linux. >>> +++ ftparchives.sgml(Arbeitskopie) >>> @@ -426,4 +426,6 @@ >>> Instructions on how to do this are given in the (obsolete) >> name="Debian Repository >>> HOWTO" >>> id="http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/repository-howto/repository-howto";>. >>> +# Should this link to outdated docu be removed? Or is it better, to keep >>> it, >>> +# since outdated docu is still better than nothing? >> >> It occurs to me that all this advice pre-dates the Debian Wiki. >> Maybe there should be a pointer in that direction instead. > > Perhaps > https://wiki.debian.org/HowToSetupADebianRepository > would be a possible target? A good example of the Debian Wiki working how it ought to! >>> Index: getting.sgml [...] >>> -Where/how can I get the Debian installation disks? >>> +Where/how can I get the Debian installation disks? >> >> The problem with "disks" is that we're now using it mostly as a >> coverterm for optical media (e.g. compact discs) and SSDs (e.g. USB >> thumbdrives), and neither of those are technically "disks"! >> >> We could say "installation media", but then there's a danger of >> singular agreement problems. > > Maybe use "installation images"? Well, it says you get the *disks* by downloading the appropriate *files*, so I was imagining that it was making a careful distinction beteween installation *media* and installation *software* (and that maybe later it would mention the possibility of getting disks some other way). But looking at it again I don't think so. Taking a step back, it no longer really makes any sense for this section to be separate from the one about installing Debian from CDs. And why point at "http://www.debian.org/mirror/list";? The questions seem to me to be, very roughly: Q) How do I install Debian? A) Easy: get an appropriate form of Debian-Installer image, put it on a CD or USB thumbdrive, and boot off that to start the install process. Q) What do you mean by "appropriate"? A) That's where it gets complicated. See https://get.debian.org! >> [...] >> (I can personally vouch for the fact that it's still possible to do >> Jessie installs off 2GB PATA hard disks and even iOmega Zip disks!) > > Ok, but I would value this as a corner case, so not mention in the FAQ. Definitely - I'm not planning to do it again. >>> Index: pkg_basics.sgml [...] >>>>> >>> These "want" flags tell what the user wanted to do with a package (as >>> -indicated either by the user's actions in the "Select" section of >>> -dselect, or by the user's direct invocations of dpkg). >>> +indicated by the user's direct invocations of dpkg). >> >> Hmm, what "flags" is it thinking of? Should we also mention >> apt/aptitude, given that marking a package for removal in aptitude's >> console UI is another way of applying a persistent status? > > The corresponding question for this is > " What is meant by >> @@ -377,8 +376,7 @@ >>> >>> How do I put a package on hold? >>> >>> -There are three ways of holding back packages, with dpkg, aptitude >>> -or with dselect. >>> +There are two ways of holding back packages, with dpkg or aptitude. >>> >>> With dpkg, you have to export the list of package selections, with: >>>dpkg --get-selections \* > selections.txt >> >> Oh, and you can now also use "apt-mark (un)hold"... > > Good point, added. I hope you remembered to reset it to "three ways". >>> Index: uptodate.sgml >>> === >>> --- uptodate.sgml (Revision 11091) >>> +++ uptodate.sgml (Arbeitskopie) >>> @@ -68,13 +68,13 @@ >>> For details, see the manual page , >>> and the file /usr/share/aptitude/README.
