On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 04:12:32PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Thursday 11 September 2008, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > > > +++ b/manual/en/hardware/supported/i386.xml > > > -in IBM's PS/2 line), or VESA Local Bus (VLB, sometimes > > > called the VL -bus). Essentially all personal computers sold in > > > recent years use one -of these. > > > +must use the ISA, EISA, PCI, PCIe. Essentially all personal > > > computers sold in +recent years use one of these. > > > > > > FJP: Are the other busses definitely no longer supported? If they > > > still are I think there should be a second para mentioning them. > > > > As far as I have found, they are not mentioned in current kernel > > configuration files. > > drivers/ata/Kconfig: This option enables support for ISA/VLB bus > legacy PATA > drivers/eisa/Kconfig: Bus (VLB) card that identify itself as an EISA > card (such as
Ok. Patch locally updated to keep VLB.
> > As far as I understand, SATA is based on the ATA (also called IDE)
> > command set, so Serial ATA devices are actually IDE devices. To mark
> > the difference with the previous connectors which use _p_arallel
> > signaling, those are called PATA.
>
> Right. The problem in your new proposed patches is that you lump SATA
> together with SCSI which IMO is not correct. From a hardware PoV it is
> AIIU much more logical to group PATA and SATA together as two IDE-based
> technologies and leave SCSI somewhat separate.
> I understand where the feeling to have SATA and SCSI together comes from
> (mainly probably IDE=hdX, SATA/SCSI=sdX), but that does not make it
> correct. Especially since "old" IDE or PATA is now also sdX.
I have tried but have not been able to reflect these subtle differences
in a way that felt nice to read… :(
> > > Emphase that not all CDs are DVDs are needed.
> […]
> > +++ b/manual/en/install-methods/official-cdrom.xml
>
> I still feel that the text is perfectly clear without the added
> <emphasis>.
Dropped. IIRC, people discussed on debian-mirror about highlighting
this on the mirror pages, and it would probably be more effective there
anyway.
> > +++ b/manual/en/using-d-i/using-d-i.xml
> This really needs a much more fundamental rewrite. In fact, an explanation
> of the frontends should IMO not be in chapter 5, but much earlier in the
> manual (a rewritten chapter 2 or 3).
Let's keep that in mind. :)
> I would make this something like:
> […]
> I would say:
> […]
Patch locally updated with your wording.
Cheers,
--
Jérémy Bobbio .''`.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : :Ⓐ : # apt-get install anarchism
`. `'`
`-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
