Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:56:18 +0200 From: "Eli Zaretskii" Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il To: JT Williams Message-Id: <7263-Wed10Jan2001195617+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6 CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: <20010110083821.B24622@kendall.sfbr.org> (message from JT Williams on Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:38:21 -0600) Subject: Re: Start to section for KB on how to contribute to DJGPP References: <3A4BA452 DOT BB6ADC3F AT bigfoot DOT com> <3A4CB0B3 DOT 9ADC93C AT softhome DOT net> <4331-Sun31Dec2000122524+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <20010110083821 DOT B24622 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org> Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:38:21 -0600 > From: JT Williams > > -: Large parts of the FAQ should actually be converted into the Knowledge > -: Base sections. Feel free... > > Could you elaborate? For example, what are some sections of the FAQ > that you feel should be transferred to the KB? If you look at the FAQ closely, you will see that many sections are not really answers to a small number of similar questions, but a hodgepodge of snippets of information about related problems and their solutions. Each one of these snippets should be converted to a Knowledge Base article. In addition, there are specific HOWTOs in the FAQ, like the section about turning off numeric tails on Windows, which also belong to the Knowledge Base. The FAQ should ideally include only a small number of answers to _really_ frequently-asked questions, with all the rest moved either to the Knowledge Base or the User's Guide. > The current djgpp documentation is substantial, but IMHO it needs some > `organization'. We have a fabulous FAQ, a Knowledge Base, a User's Guide, > various HowTo's and ReadMe's, tutorials, and so on. We have a massive > mail archive that contains lots of useful information. By and large, > it's all there, but fragmented and scattered. Is there a long-term goal > (or wish) for integrating all this documentation? Goals do exist, but IMHO they are by and large irrelevant without motivated individuals who actively work on this. > What is a `Knowledge Base', and how should it differ from a `User's Guide' > or from a hypothetical `DJGPP book'? What are the reasons for having > both the KB and the UG? Would it be preferable to pull most everything > together into a sort of "Hitchhiker's Guide to DJGPP"? User's Guide should IMHO contain a tutorial introduction to setting up and using DJGPP, and a few chapters about more advanced issues, like porting Unix software, creating a development environment, etc. By contrast, the Knowledge Base is a heap of short recipes for solving specific problems, which is not intended to be read in its entirety, but searched for keywords. HOWTOs can be made part of the Knowledge Base as well, I guess. > If someone were to donate effort to `djgpp documentation project', > how would that effort best be spent? I'd begin by making the libc docs better. For example, libc.info is in dire need of a good index, so that users could easily find what function they need e.g. for creating a directory; global variables and environment variables mentioned in libc.info also need to be indexed. Another important missing piece is the User's Guide. It should be assembled from README.1ST, a few sections from the FAQ (such as chapters 1 and 2, sections 4.1 and 4.2, etc.). The other major job is the documentation of the library internals. This should include, in addition to the important aspects of the internal library operation per se, also the descriptions of the DPMI setup done by the startup code, of exception and signal handling, and of the debug support. I think this is enough work for about 10 man-years, so I'll stop here ;-)