Sysop: | Amessyroom |
---|---|
Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
Users: | 28 |
Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
Uptime: | 46:24:25 |
Calls: | 422 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 1,024 |
Messages: | 90,336 |
I don't think anyone at the Arch project or the Debian project
would say that Arch is based on Debian.
It is certainly the case that their documentation is good, and
although not universally applicable to Debian packages, can be a
decent guide.
FYI, some of us have recently re-started an effort to improve the Debian Wiki. One of the things we need to establish (IMHO) is to determine what audience the wiki is *for*. For example, it serves a useful function for Developers, with clusters of pages for Debconfs, summers of code, etc.,
and well-maintained pages for some developer tools.
It's less clear how useful the current wiki is for users. I think many of us are inspired by how good the Arch Wiki is for users, and the Debian wiki falls far short of that. I guess we should try to improve it for users, but we don't have consensus on exactly how to do that, yet.
Suggestions welcome!
On Wed May 14, 2025 at 7:45 PM BST, Dan Ritter wrote:
I don't think anyone at the Arch project or the Debian projectACK
would say that Arch is based on Debian.
It is certainly the case that their documentation is good, and
although not universally applicable to Debian packages, can be a
decent guide.
FYI, some of us have recently re-started an effort to improve the Debian Wiki. One of the things we need to establish (IMHO) is to determine what audience the wiki is *for*.
one of the problems I see in the world of GNU/Linux is this tendency
to have "per-distribution" documentation for thing which are not
specific to a distribution, as evidenced by the fact that Debian users
often find the Arch wiki useful.
The most prominent issue I can see is that there is no unified
sense of chronology. That is, I can look at a page and not have
any idea whether it is correct for current Stable.
On Thu May 15, 2025 at 5:45 PM BST, Stefan Monnier wrote:
one of the problems I see in the world of GNU/Linux is this
tendency to have "per-distribution" documentation for thing which
are not specific to a distribution, as evidenced by the fact that
Debian users often find the Arch wiki useful.
I agree that the Debian Wiki should strive to document
Debian-specific stuff. I recently deleted (sort-of) the page
DotFiles¹, after a brief discussion on this list a month ago, because
it was out-of-date with respect to Greg's wiki² and not really
distribution specific (although there are distribution specific
quirks, that Greg documents).
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/DotFiles
[2] https://mywiki.wooledge.org/DotFiles