Sean Whitton writes:
> On Sun 14 Jul 2019 at 10:22AM +02, Ansgar wrote:
>> How should we continue with this issue?
>
> Thank you for following up.
>
> I still do not see any positive reason for deleting documentation which
> might be helpful to someone, especially when discussion in the bug has
> i
Sean Whitton writes:
> Therefore I would like to propose the following change:
This looks good to me, and I agree that this thread has shown a consensus
that lack of doc-base registration should not be considered a bug, given
our belief that it is not widely used.
Seconded.
> diff --git a/poli
Hello,
On Sun 14 Jul 2019 at 10:22AM +02, Ansgar wrote:
> How should we continue with this issue?
Thank you for following up.
I still do not see any positive reason for deleting documentation which
might be helpful to someone, especially when discussion in the bug has
indicated that people are
Sean Whitton writes:
> On Thu 11 Oct 2018 at 12:57PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that the consensus is that doc-base is not actually useful and
>> so 9.10. Registering Documents using doc-base can be dropped.
>
> We shouldn't drop it because then the doc-base registrations
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 09:07:53AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > We need a cross-distro cross-desktop standard for an index of
> > docs before we can move on from doc-base like we did with menu.
> I don't think so: we can just remove doc-base without providing a
> replacement at the same time
Paul Wise writes:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:32:52 -0700 Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Instead, if there is indeed consensus, we should change it so that it
>> no longer says that doc-base registration is recommended.
>
> We need a cross-distro cross-desktop standard for an index of
> docs before we can mov
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:32:52 -0700 Sean Whitton wrote:
> Instead, if there is indeed consensus, we should change it so that it
> no longer says that doc-base registration is recommended.
We need a cross-distro cross-desktop standard for an index of
docs before we can move on from doc-base like we
On 2018-10-12 10:16, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 01:04:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Andrey Rahmatullin writes ("Bug#910783: Remove doc-base
recommendation"):
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.2.1.2
> Severity: normal
>
> It seems to me that
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 01:04:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andrey Rahmatullin writes ("Bug#910783: Remove doc-base recommendation"):
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 4.2.1.2
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > It seems to me that the consensus is th
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 06:10:43PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Stuart Prescott writes:
>
> > In counterpoint, I'll add to that 4169 packages register 5318 sets of
> > documents in doc-base. To me, that says that we've got a lot of packages
> > who are advertising their documentation this way.
>
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 06:10:43PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I wish I had some feel for how many people were actually using doc-base as
> a client, though. How many users actually run the tools and use them to
> find documentation, and is it successful for them?
to give a data-point: I have no
Stuart Prescott writes:
> In counterpoint, I'll add to that 4169 packages register 5318 sets of
> documents in doc-base. To me, that says that we've got a lot of packages
> who are advertising their documentation this way.
I wish I had some feel for how many people were actually using doc-base a
> lintian has an I: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration tag,
> with 1872 emitted currently:
> https://lintian.debian.org/tags/possible-documentation->
> but-no-doc-base-registration.html
In counterpoint, I'll add to that 4169 packages register 5318 sets of
documents in doc-base.
Hello,
On Thu 11 Oct 2018 at 01:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The problem with doc-base is not that it is a bad idea, it's that it's
> not comprehensive enough.
>
> I suggest that instead of abandoning it, we should bump the lintian
> message to a warning.
I'm not a Lintian maintainer, but I
Hello Andrey,
On Thu 11 Oct 2018 at 12:57PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> It seems to me that the consensus is that doc-base is not actually useful and
> so 9.10. Registering Documents using doc-base can be dropped.
We shouldn't drop it because then the doc-base registrations in existing
pa
Re: Ian Jackson 2018-10-11 <23487.15460.144648.495...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> The problem with doc-base is not that it is a bad idea, it's that it's
> not comprehensive enough.
The problem with doc-base is that no one is using it. It had 20 years
to become adopted. Let's move on instead of tryin
Andrey Rahmatullin writes ("Bug#910783: Remove doc-base recommendation"):
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.2.1.2
> Severity: normal
>
> It seems to me that the consensus is that doc-base is not actually useful and
> so 9.10. Registering Documents using doc-base
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.2.1.2
Severity: normal
It seems to me that the consensus is that doc-base is not actually useful and
so 9.10. Registering Documents using doc-base can be dropped.
lintian has an I: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration tag, with
1872 emitted current
18 matches
Mail list logo
