Mailing List Archive

On Sunday 03 September 2006 08:30, Xavier Neys wrote:
> vapier wrote:
> > vapier 06/09/03 05:02:44
> >
> > Added: handbook-ia64.xml hb-install-ia64-bootloader.xml
> > hb-install-ia64-disk.xml
> > hb-install-ia64-kernel.xml hb-install-ia64-medium.xml
> > Log:
> > initial import of ia64 handbook
>
> The docs about IA64 (and arm) are much appreciated, but are we supposed mop
> up after the files have been dumped in /doc/en/handbook?
> I put arm between parenthesis because I am aware of a lost email about it.
> Why do we now have IA64 arch-specific files?
> Have those 2 new handbooks been omitted from the handbook index.xml and
> metadoc on purpose because they are not ready yet or were we supposed to
> discover them by accident and index them?

i sent an e-mail about both handbooks but it looks like both fucking things
have been dropped on the floor

i'm not expecting anyone else to do work for me; i wasnt going to add them to
the handbook index until i got feedback and people are happy with them
-mike

Mike Frysinger wrote:

Funny, I received the ML one hours later after the personal one.


> On Sunday 03 September 2006 08:30, Xavier Neys wrote:
>> vapier wrote:
>>> vapier 06/09/03 05:02:44
>>>
>>> Added: handbook-ia64.xml hb-install-ia64-bootloader.xml
>>> hb-install-ia64-disk.xml
>>> hb-install-ia64-kernel.xml hb-install-ia64-medium.xml
>>> Log:
>>> initial import of ia64 handbook
>> The docs about IA64 (and arm) are much appreciated, but are we supposed mop
>> up after the files have been dumped in /doc/en/handbook?
>> I put arm between parenthesis because I am aware of a lost email about it.
>> Why do we now have IA64 arch-specific files?
>> Have those 2 new handbooks been omitted from the handbook index.xml and
>> metadoc on purpose because they are not ready yet or were we supposed to
>> discover them by accident and index them?
>
> i sent an e-mail about both handbooks but it looks like both fucking things
> have been dropped on the floor

Yeah, looks like it's occurring more and more often :(
If i didn't know better, I'd say our mail is handled on the same box as
bugzilla :)

> i'm not expecting anyone else to do work for me; i wasnt going to add them to
> the handbook index until i got feedback and people are happy with them
> -mike

Nice. Thanks.
If you need help to get rid of the 4 ARCH-specific files, you know where to ask.
Any bitching about the hb*x86+amd64*xml file names will be ignored :)


Wkr,
--
/ Xavier Neys
\_ Gentoo Documentation Project
/
/\ http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/

On Monday 04 September 2006 07:02, Xavier Neys wrote:
> Funny, I received the ML one hours later after the personal one.

which is why i left you in the cc ;)

> > i'm not expecting anyone else to do work for me; i wasnt going to add
> > them to the handbook index until i got feedback and people are happy with
> > them
>
> Nice. Thanks.
> If you need help to get rid of the 4 ARCH-specific files, you know where to
> ask. Any bitching about the hb*x86+amd64*xml file names will be ignored :)

so you're trying to merge all the arches into one ? seems like a good idea
for some (the cd based arches have a lot in common) but pointless for others
(the bootloader pages have very little in common with any other arch)

so for the bootloader page you'd end up with like
<title>
<if arch == x86>
<x86 stuff>
<elif arch == ia64>
<ia64 stuff>
<elif arch == arm>
<arm stuff>
<endif>
<footer>
might as well just keep them sep
-mike

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> so you're trying to merge all the arches into one ? seems like a good idea
> for some (the cd based arches have a lot in common) but pointless for others
> (the bootloader pages have very little in common with any other arch)

Only in places where it makes sense, don't worry :).

Cheers,
-jkt

--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 04 September 2006 07:02, Xavier Neys wrote:
>> If you need help to get rid of the 4 ARCH-specific files, you know where to
>> ask. Any bitching about the hb*x86+amd64*xml file names will be ignored :)
>
> so you're trying to merge all the arches into one ? seems like a good idea
> for some (the cd based arches have a lot in common) but pointless for others
> (the bootloader pages have very little in common with any other arch)

I am not most certainly not trying to merge them all back into the mess we had
before the ARCH-split.
Only the very similar ones can be merged. x86 and AMD64 were almost identical,
and you so is IA64, same tools, terminology (e.g. partitions, not slices),
partitioning plans, structure...

*bootloader*, very different on all other arches, not mergeable

*kernel*, might be worth a look, main differences are genkernel (yes|no),
kernel names & location of compiled one. The list of required kernel options
might lead to a lengthy series of code samples, though.

*disk*, partitions vs. slices, partitioning plans are all different, common
bits in those files are low-maintenance, not mergeable.

*medium*, looks like some could be merged.


Cheers,
--
/ Xavier Neys
\_ Gentoo Documentation Project
/
/\ http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/