RE: First pass for LDP-Author-Guide

[Gregory Leblanc <GLeblanc@cu-portland.edu>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Merrill [mailto:dcmerrill@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 8:28 PM
> To: jdd
> Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org
> Subject: Re: First pass for LDP-Author-Guide
> 
> jdd wrote:
> > 
> [snipped extensively]
> > 
> > For New Authors
> > 
> > this paragraph is very confusing. It seems to say that  
> "you may write
> > your documentation in the format of your choice"
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > "another LDP volunteer will translate your document into DocBook"
> > 
> > I don't think this is the "normal" subscription method. 
> anyway I will
> > probably very difficult to to this txt to docbook 
> translation (if not, why
> > discuss about docbook!)
> 
> I was thinking about this today. Perhaps it _is_ better to have LDP
> folks do DocBook. That would likely produce more consistent results,
> especially when it comes to indexing. If, for instance, an indexer can
> go through _all_ of the HOWTOs and index appropriate stuff, 
> we're likely
> to get a better index.

I like some aspects of this idea, but not others.  Before I think this is a
good option, we need to get some people who are good at some specific
aspect.  I'd love to get good at indexing, but I've got no idea how to go
about it.  

> On actual software projects, some of the best gains from Open Source
> methods is that people who specialize in certain aspects of 
> development
> get to work on what they're good at. Wouldn't that principle apply to
> the LDP as well? And, on a related note, wouldn't it be a 
> Good Thing to
> have the CVS versions the "official" latest-and-greatest, to 
> facilitate
> this? Without having been around here long, I feel a bit presumptuous
> suggesting policy decisions, but then again I know I'll get 
> slapped down
> if I'm off base. ;)

Hey, that's what we're here for!  :-)  As for CVS versions being the
"official" latest-and-greatest, I would REALLY REALLY like that, but there
are a few problems left to overcome.  I can outline them here if you really
want, but it would be better to use the LDP-CVS list for that instead.  I
think that a message to discuss-subscribe@cvslist.linuxdoc.org will get you
subscribed, but I'm not sure.  If it doesn't work, let me know and I'll get
detailed instructions.  We need to have more discussion on getting CVS into
place, but there haven't been many people interested in that, and I know
what I would like to do, but I have no idea how to make it happen.

> > we absolutely need a ONE SOURCE rpm (or tgz) that install 
> all this stuff
> > in one step.
> 
> This _would_ be very, very helpful for those of us who are 
> interested in
> doing the markup and/or authoring, but not struggling with tools. I'm
> not sure what percentage of folks it would really work for.

The problem with this is that there are a lot of individual components that
need to work together.  I will compile some links for the things that are
needed for editors, but if we get a "work server", then I don't think that
putting the processing tools together is worth while, as authors will be
able to get ssh/scp accounts there, and use the "official" LDP tools to
process their docs.  Anybody know exactly where this process is at?
Well, that's my two pence, later,
	Grego


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org