Re: New version of /intl/l10n/ pages

[Denis Barbier]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:06:11AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
[...]
> Last, if build runs fine, someone should remove old files to prevent
> problems with content negociation:
> cd /org/www.debian.org/debian.org/international/l10n
> rm po-* templates-* team-* l10n* i18n*
> and also remove outdated index files.
> Not sure I will have time (and rights) to do it myself.

I tried and failed, so could a webmaster please run above commands?
And also remove outdated index.*.html files.

Thanks

Denis

Re: New version of /intl/l10n/ pages

[Josip Rodin]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:06:11AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> Last, if build runs fine,

Seems it did.   :)

> someone should remove old files to prevent
> problems with content negociation:
> cd /org/www.debian.org/debian.org/international/l10n
> rm po-* templates-* team-* l10n* i18n*
> and also remove outdated index files.
> Not sure I will have time (and rights) to do it myself.

You don't. I just did it.

-- 
 2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Processed: Re: Bug#123771: update-excuses info from package pages

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> reassign 123771 www.debian.org
Bug#123771: update-excuses info from package pages
Bug reassigned from package `packages.debian.org' to `www.debian.org'.

> --
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Re: problem on a www.debian.org page

[Denis Barbier]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 03:59:48PM +0100, Benoit Rouits wrote:
> Hello,
> just a word to say that none of the links work in page :
> http://www.debian.org/intl/l10n/po-fr

Yes, these pages were being redesigned, everything seems to be right just
now.  Please note that there has been some changes in URLs too, and the one
above is replaced by http://www.debian.org/intl/l10n/po/fr

Denis

Re: Intro WWW pages

[James A. Treacy]

Hmm. the person that wrote the following has no attribution in the mail
I'm responding to.
> > 
> > One of the biggest publicity items for Debian is it's website, however
> > the very important /intro/ section seems less than complete to me.  I 
> > intend to help out in this area and I wanted to see if there are others 
> > that would like to help as well and discuss some ideas.
> > 
> > First, the /intro pages seem like a good place to summarize the project 
> > and how it works.  The "Reasons to Choose Debian" is a nice list but I
> > feel the top three or four items should be chosen to Frame the discussion.

The place to discuss the web site is on debian-www.

Before people jump into details, any reorganization needs to start by
looking at the big picture. We need to look at how typical users use the
site and make sure we serve them. IMO, that means newbies, people with
linux/unix experience and developers.

Much of the same goes for the intro section. There is a lot of material
there (and more that can be added). If the organization is not well
thought out in advance, it is unlikely to be an improvement on what is
already there.

-- 
James (Jay) Treacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ports disappeared from www.debian.org?

[Randolph Chung]

In reference to a message from Josip Rodin, dated Dec 08:
> On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 02:08:22PM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> > Is it just me, or did the link to http://www.debian.org/ports disappear
> > from the main page?  Any reason for this?
> 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2001/debian-www-200112/msg00011.html

Josip, and the rest of the debian www page maintainers,

Please add the ports link back to the front page.  I don't remember offhand 
where it was previously, but under "Distribution" on the left hand pane of 
the front page seems like the right place.

c.f.
www.netbsd.org lists ports as "Supported Hardware" under "Distribution"
www.openbsd.org lists ports as "Hardware Platforms" under "About OpenBSD"

I think one of the main things that make Debian such a good distribution
is our wide support for different hardware. Shouldn't we highlight that?

randolph
-- 
Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.TauSq.org/

Re: Intro WWW pages

[Grant Bowman]

* James A. Treacy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011213 11:03]:
> Hmm. the person that wrote the following has no attribution in the mail
> I'm responding to.

Hi James,

That was me.  Kyle missed the attribution.

> > > One of the biggest publicity items for Debian is it's website, however
> > > the very important /intro/ section seems less than complete to me.  I 
> > > intend to help out in this area and I wanted to see if there are others 
> > > that would like to help as well and discuss some ideas.
> > > 
> > > First, the /intro pages seem like a good place to summarize the project 
> > > and how it works.  The "Reasons to Choose Debian" is a nice list but I
> > > feel the top three or four items should be chosen to Frame the discussion.
> 
> The place to discuss the web site is on debian-www.

I was interested in another perspective and to see how active the other
mail list was.  I was also hoping to get a discussion and perspective
from those with less technical background and perhaps more experience in
publicity related issues.  No disrespect intended.

> Before people jump into details, any reorganization needs to start by
> looking at the big picture. We need to look at how typical users use the
> site and make sure we serve them. IMO, that means newbies, people with
> linux/unix experience and developers.
> 
> Much of the same goes for the intro section. There is a lot of material
> there (and more that can be added). If the organization is not well
> thought out in advance, it is unlikely to be an improvement on what is
> already there.

I agree, this shouldn't be done haphazardly.  I was trying to get a more
concrete suggestion worked out about the content before moving on
through the process and bringing it to this list.  I think it's great if
both lists participate.  I probably should have cc'd it myself.

-- 
-- Grant Bowman   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Debian WWW CVS commit by danish: webwml/danish/international/l10n/data

[Denis Barbier]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:47:35PM -0800, Debian WWW CVS wrote:
> CVSROOT:  /cvs/webwml
> Module name:  webwml
> Changes by:   danish  01/12/13 12:47:35
> 
> webwml/danish/international/l10n/data
> 
> Update of /cvs/webwml/webwml/danish/international/l10n/data
> In directory klecker:/tmp/cvs-serv1961/data
> 
> Log Message:
> Directory /cvs/webwml/webwml/danish/international/l10n/data added to the 
> repository

Hi,

this directory is useless.

Denis

Re: Ports disappeared from www.debian.org?

[Josip Rodin]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:50:38AM -0800, Randolph Chung wrote:
> > > Is it just me, or did the link to http://www.debian.org/ports disappear
> > > from the main page?  Any reason for this?
> > 
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2001/debian-www-200112/msg00011.html
> 
> Josip, and the rest of the debian www page maintainers,
> 
> Please add the ports link back to the front page.  I don't remember offhand 
> where it was previously, but under "Distribution" on the left hand pane of 
> the front page seems like the right place.
> 
> c.f.
> www.netbsd.org lists ports as "Supported Hardware" under "Distribution"
> www.openbsd.org lists ports as "Hardware Platforms" under "About OpenBSD"

It was under "Distribution", yeah. I don't quite see how this could fit
under distribution because the meaning of the word distribution there is
the act of distributing (and not as in a Linux distribution).

(Before you complain, I didn't pick that confusing term for the section
name.)

I thought about adding it below Developers' Corner link, but some of the
port pages are to be used by normal users, not only developers.

Note also that I separated the "International" link -- I'd have removed it
like the ports link, but that section generally is aimed at all users (that
speak another language).

> I think one of the main things that make Debian such a good distribution
> is our wide support for different hardware. Shouldn't we highlight that?

Yes, though our port pages are in general somewhat suboptimal to be
highlighted :| The introductory page deserves mention, of course, but not
pages that have a "News" section from 1999, and those that are just generic
stuff. 

-- 
 2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Re: Debian WWW CVS commit by danish: webwml/danish/international/l10n/data

[Kaare Olsen]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 22:08:50 +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:

>> Directory /cvs/webwml/webwml/danish/international/l10n/data added to the 
>> repository

>this directory is useless.

I can't seem to get rid of it; while both it and "scripts" was removed
from my local cvs tree and neither won't come back when I run an
update.  

You're welcome to remove the "data" directory from danish, I can't...

-- 
Regards, Kaare - 

Re: Debian WWW CVS commit by danish: webwml/danish/international/l10n/data

[Denis Barbier]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 10:25:20PM +0100, Kaare Olsen wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 22:08:50 +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> 
> >> Directory /cvs/webwml/webwml/danish/international/l10n/data added to the 
> >> repository
> 
> >this directory is useless.
> 
> I can't seem to get rid of it; while both it and "scripts" was removed
> from my local cvs tree and neither won't come back when I run an
> update.  
> 
> You're welcome to remove the "data" directory from danish, I can't...

Having this directory is not a problem, I only wanted to let you know
it is useless, that's all ;)

Denis

Re: Intro WWW pages

[James A. Treacy]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:06:41PM -0800, Grant Bowman wrote:
> 
> I agree, this shouldn't be done haphazardly.  I was trying to get a more
> concrete suggestion worked out about the content before moving on
> through the process and bringing it to this list.  I think it's great if
> both lists participate.  I probably should have cc'd it myself.
> 
Another reason it is imperative that we have something concrete before
committing it is so we don't burn out translators. They need to have
something that isn't going to constantly change from under them.

One thing you need to keep in mind is that we are volunteers (also :).
That means that people may not respond right away or have time to give
feedback at every turn. This can lead to discouragment in the person
who is trying to make progress. I'd like to see this attempt at fixing
the site layout not die. :)

-- 
James (Jay) Treacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ports disappeared from www.debian.org?

[Christopher C. Chimelis]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Josip Rodin wrote:

> It was under "Distribution", yeah. I don't quite see how this could fit
> under distribution because the meaning of the word distribution there is
> the act of distributing (and not as in a Linux distribution).
> 
> (Before you complain, I didn't pick that confusing term for the section
> name.)
> 
> I thought about adding it below Developers' Corner link, but some of the
> port pages are to be used by normal users, not only developers.

How about under either Support or Miscellaneous?  I like Support better,
since the port pages frequently provide information for people that are
thinking of installing Debian on a non-i386 architecture and, since they
are also usually like Hardware Compat lists, the port pages usually fall
under a support-like category (at least to me).

This reminds me, what ever happened to making the Debian pages generic and
putting i386-specific info into an i386 port page?  I remember some intent
to do so over a year ago, but it never happened.

> Yes, though our port pages are in general somewhat suboptimal to be
> highlighted :| The introductory page deserves mention, of course, but not
> pages that have a "News" section from 1999, and those that are just generic
> stuff. 

True.  I know that I need to keep up with the alpha pages quite a bit
more and I've found a few of the other port pages to be less than helpful
when I looked for more info.  I keep meaning to file bugs against those or
at least notify some of the arch contacts, but haven't gotten to it yet.

C

Re: Ports disappeared from www.debian.org?

[James A. Treacy]

I really meant to push the point of keeping the ports link when your first
removed it. I guess my lone comment wasn't strong enough. :)

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 10:16:00PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> 
> (Before you complain, I didn't pick that confusing term for the section
> name.)
> 
/me ducks. Why not simply call it 'Getting Debian' or 'Installing
Debian'. The current subsections would work fairly well with those:
 Release Info
 Debian Packages
 Download with FTP
 Debian on CD
and
 Ports
The only thing confusing about this is that it is rather x86 centric.
I would just add the Ports link back in and deal with this as part of a
reorganization of the pages (an idea that has been brought up randomly
over the last 1.5 years).

-- 
James (Jay) Treacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian WWW CVS commit by danish: webwml/danish/international/l10n/data

[James A. Treacy]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 10:25:20PM +0100, Kaare Olsen wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 22:08:50 +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> 
> >> Directory /cvs/webwml/webwml/danish/international/l10n/data added to the 
> >> repository
> 
> >this directory is useless.
> 
> I can't seem to get rid of it; while both it and "scripts" was removed
> from my local cvs tree and neither won't come back when I run an
> update.  
> 
> You're welcome to remove the "data" directory from danish, I can't...
> 
Inability to remove a directory without direct access to the repository
is one of the annoying limitations of CVS. I have deleted it.

-- 
James (Jay) Treacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Feedback for Craig Small on misc/merchandise:

[Craig Small]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:06:33AM -0500, Jeff Albro wrote:
> This page is easy to read, easy to scan, and accomplishes its mission.
> It's great!  All I have for you is a few nitpicky improvements.

I'm glad you like it.  It's basically a copy of the CD vendors page.

> I don't believe you need the horizontal rules to separate the different
> vendors.  The paragraph grouping clearly indicates what goes with what.
It does make it a bit.. clinical doesn't it? Ok, I'll remove them.

> I recommend a few wording changes on the product lists and possibly
> adding notes on profit shareing for Debian:
I'm trying to think of an appropriate short phrase.  The CD vendors page
has "Allows Contribution to Debian"

I'll also update the list of things that are sold.

> If we can resolve the donation questions with Cafe Press and ThinkGeek I
> think we should post it clearly.  Craig - Do you want me to do the
> research for that?  Let's guide people to those who treat Debian the best!
Sure thing Jeff.

-- 
Craig Small VK2XLZ  GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE  95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5
Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIEEE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Ports disappeared from www.debian.org?

[Chris Tillman]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 06:04:20PM -0500, James A. Treacy wrote:
> I really meant to push the point of keeping the ports link when your first
> removed it. I guess my lone comment wasn't strong enough. :)
> 
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 10:16:00PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > 
> > (Before you complain, I didn't pick that confusing term for the section
> > name.)
> > 
> /me ducks. Why not simply call it 'Getting Debian' or 'Installing
> Debian'. The current subsections would work fairly well with those:
>  Release Info
>  Debian Packages
>  Download with FTP
>  Debian on CD
> and
>  Ports
> The only thing confusing about this is that it is rather x86 centric.
> I would just add the Ports link back in and deal with this as part of a
> reorganization of the pages (an idea that has been brought up randomly
> over the last 1.5 years).

The term 'Ports' itself is in effect an i386-ism. Supported
Architectures is much more descriptive to non-developer types.

-- 
*--v- Installing Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 v--*
|    |
|   debian-imac (potato):    |
|Chris Tillman[EMAIL PROTECTED]  |
|   May the Source be with you   |
**

Re: Ports disappeared from www.debian.org?

[James A. Treacy]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 06:35:06PM -0700, Chris Tillman wrote:
> 
> The term 'Ports' itself is in effect an i386-ism. Supported
> Architectures is much more descriptive to non-developer types.
> 
As always there are competing goals. Keeping the string short is one of
them.

-- 
James (Jay) Treacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ports disappeared from www.debian.org?

[Grant Bowman]

* James A. Treacy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011213 18:27]:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 06:35:06PM -0700, Chris Tillman wrote:
> > The term 'Ports' itself is in effect an i386-ism. Supported
> > Architectures is much more descriptive to non-developer types.
> 
> As always there are competing goals. Keeping the string short is one of
> them.

What about Architectures?  Is this too long?

-- 
-- Grant Bowman   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Debian WWW CVS commit by csmall: webwml/english/misc merchandise.def merchandis ...

[James A. Treacy]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 04:08:25PM -0800, Debian WWW CVS wrote:
> CVSROOT:  /cvs/webwml
> Module name:  webwml
> Changes by:   csmall  01/12/13 16:08:25
> 
> Modified files:
>   english/misc   : merchandise.def merchandise.data 
> 
> Log message:
>Changed T-shirt to plural T-shirts
>Added polo shirts, frisbees (try translating that one) and mouse pads
> 
So they are called frisbees in AU also. The proper term is actually
flying disc (frisbee is a trademark of Wham-O). Of course, the only
people I know that use the term 'flying disk' are really into
Ultimate).

-- 
James (Jay) Treacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ports disappeared from www.debian.org?

[James A. Treacy]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 06:43:38PM -0800, Grant Bowman wrote:
> * James A. Treacy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011213 18:27]:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 06:35:06PM -0700, Chris Tillman wrote:
> > > The term 'Ports' itself is in effect an i386-ism. Supported
> > > Architectures is much more descriptive to non-developer types.
> > 
> > As always there are competing goals. Keeping the string short is one of
> > them.
> 
> What about Architectures?  Is this too long?
> 
The problem with this term is that it is generally used to denote
different hardware and thus doesn't do justice to the port to the hurd.
Frankly, I don't believe any word will be acceptable to all and I'd
stick with Ports. After all, every release is a port of Debian -
including x86 if we want to state it that way.

-- 
James (Jay) Treacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]