Talk:Debian

Not sure how much stuff should go in a Debian namespace (like CGI which I just created) and which should just sit in the global wiki namespace (like rcconf, which I also added).

What do you folks think? Or is there already a policy regarding this?

JohnMG 15:30, Mar 25, 2004 (EST)

For now, put them in the main namespace. In the great majority of cases like that, separate articles are not necessary, regardless of the namespace. CGI is CGI. There's an entry for it. If Debian has quirks, maybe put it under a 'configuration' section of 'Debian' or whatever also already exists. Policy regarding this is in flux at the moment, but that's the safest bet for now.

Digiot 16:23, Mar 25, 2004 (EST)

Hmm... trouble is, CGI is different from CGI. Check out both pages to see what I mean.

Also, there may be specific debian commands that are common names, but have specific meaning to debian users. I think these sorts of commands should go under, say, Debian:foo rather than just foo. This is better than the alternative of having wiki pages like:

Under Slack, foo works like this...

Under Debian, it means something totally different...

RedHat uses foo in a totally different way to mean such-and-such.

foo is also a refreshing beverage...

etc.

Also, there's a page called Configuring which should really be X:Configuration (or something close to that) since something as general as "configuring" can apply to anything. I made a comment regarding that in Talk:Configuring_X.

JohnMG 20:33, Mar 25, 2004 (EST)

Regarding the 'Configuration', that doesn't actually exist. I redirected it to 'Configuring X' because it had identical content and, as you say, 'Configuring' is vague.

As far as the CGI thing, I know they're different - I just meant that Debian:CGI content could be under a Debian article or the CGI article.

As far as the advantages of Debian:Foo, rather than a lot of pages including distro-specific notes, I see that. However, at this time, (stress: at this time) the policy is to keep the namepace down to the generic main and LQWiki-specific. This isn't my personal policy or anything. :) I always try to say when it's just my two cents.

Digiot 20:50, Mar 25, 2004 (EST)

While you were replying, I just remembered the good example I was trying to remember: Stable vs. Stable.

Well, policy is policy I guess. Though, this is going to lead to unwieldy and long wiki pages, and may be a PITA to fix later on.

JohnMG 20:56, Mar 25, 2004 (EST)


 * Debian Stable (or something similar) should work well enough. Creating a separate namespace for arbitrary topics is really not the best solution at the time, IMHO.  If you'd like to discuss the topic feel free to joni the mailing list. Jeremy 10:17, Mar 26, 2004 (EST)

But why a 'Stable' anyway? Why does that merit an independent article? In the 'Debian' article, it seems natural enough to describe Debian's release process.

Ironically, I was just saying that I figure we could use some longer more 'Encyclopedia'-like articles. I'm afraid readers of the site would get tired of clicking around every few seconds and would like to just settle down and read and learn.

You are right that this could be a headache further down the road, depending on how it goes. I think it's partly a technical issue and this might not be appropriate but you might want to post something on the mailing list and see how the discussion turns out. General topics like this should go there more than on specific article pages like this.

Digiot 21:10, Mar 25, 2004 (EST)