From owner-freebsd-doc Fri Jan 5 15:16: 7 2001 From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 5 15:16:04 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from post.mail.nl.demon.net (post-11.mail.nl.demon.net [194.159.73.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA1937B400; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:16:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [212.238.54.101] (helo=freebie.demon.nl) by post.mail.nl.demon.net with smtp (Exim 3.14 #4) id 14Eg5Z-0008Cx-00; Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:16:01 +0000 Received: (from wkb@localhost) by freebie.demon.nl (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f05NGw170690; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 00:16:58 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wkb) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 00:16:58 +0100 From: Wilko Bulte To: "Bruce A. Mah" Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org, wilko@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RELNOTESng update Message-ID: <20010106001658.A70625@freebie.demon.nl> References: <200101051950.f05Jo0H24919@bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <200101051950.f05Jo0H24919@bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com>; from bmah@freebsd.org on Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 11:50:00AM -0800 X-OS: FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE X-PGP: finger wilko@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 11:50:00AM -0800, Bruce A. Mah wrote: > 1. Conditional text so we can support multiple architectures from one > set of source files (no more editing {i386,alpha}/RELNOTES.TXT). Yes! > 2. The Supported Hardware lists from HARDWARE.TXT and RELNOTES.TXT > have been combined. For alpha I have my doubts about this. There is far too much untested hardware on alpha, and experience has shown that x86 != alpha even when would expect no cpu-port specifics. This is fundamental problem because we lack a wide alpha user base. And hence lack widespread testing of hardware. > 3. DocBook markup, so we can generate release notes in multiple > formats. Good idea. > At this point I would like to get some input from people. In > particular: > > 1. First and foremost, is the concept a Good Thing(TM)? I'm pretty > convinced we need something like this (particularly to deal with > multiple architectures and information listed in various places). But > if the consensus is "no", I want to bail out now. For me it is a good thing. > 2. Since I only use i386 architecture machines, I want to make sure > we can cover the alpha (and later the ia64, sparc, ppc, or whatever > else turns up). So I'd like some alpha folks to look their version > over. One question I'd like to get answered: The alpha has its own > HARDWARE.TXT file listing different processor/motherboard notes. I'd > like to know people's thoughts about folding this in as well > (particularly from Wilko, since he's maintaining it). I'm more than willing to convert alpha/HARDWARE.TXT into the right input format. Assuming I'm allowed to bug someone about the right formatting tools etc ;-) I do not want to pull the HW.TXT into the Relnotes. I don't think that this is a good idea. For me release notes are a thing that should be as small and comprehensive as possible. More static info, like details on hardware support etc, should be kept seperate. > 3. At some point, I'll need to talk to someone who's familiar with > "make release" to see about how to integrate this into the build. It'll You want someone to look at that, no doubt. I've had some, um, interesting discussions with David when I screwed up the release makefile during introduction of alpha's HW.TXT. My bad, but not something to repeat. Wilko -- | / o / / _ Arnhem, The Netherlands email: wilko@freebsd.org |/|/ / / /( (_) Bulte http://www.freebsd.org http://www.nlfug.nl To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message