Subject: Re: Documentation
To: None <netbsd-advocacy@netbsd.org>
From: Richard Rauch <rkr@rkr.kcnet.com>
List: netbsd-advocacy
Date: 04/14/2000 13:44:55
My personal thoughts (I'll try to be brief):
* Is *roff the way to keep on going with documentation? I gather that
our macro package is able to generate HTTP with appropriate links,
which was the biggest objection that I _thought_ that I saw.
Converting man-pages doesn't sound too productive right now, but what
about new documents? Man, as I've said elsewhere, isn't always the
best mechanism; man assumes that you already know the question to ask,
which is not always a valid assumption.
DocType(?) has been suggested; there's also something called Doxygen,
which is apparently a kind of literate programming tool. The latter
could, in principle, help us generate a nice kernel/userland pair
of volumes. Any thoughts on these, or is *roff held to be the best
tool? (A principle advantage of *roff is that a fairly basic system
should have *roff installed anyway, and it can be used with a basic
line-printer and text console. Having to install something like
TeX or a web-browser---and perhaps needing X up and running---in
order to read docs is not a healthy requirement.)
* We have some good information online. E.g., the web pages have info
about creating a new device driver and adding system calls. I can't
remember seeing these things in _installed_ docs, though. Are there
plans to bring this into the standard install with 1.5? Or is it
already in 1.4, and I just haven't seen it?
* There are some USD/PSD(?) (User/Programmer Supplementary Docs) that
are ``dead references'' in an installed system. (I.e., a place is held
for them, but the original docs are missing---presumably they were
pruned in the process of removing AT&T taint from BSD.) Ideally, these
docs should be suitably recreated, and maintained with current document
formatting tools. (At least, _I_ think that that would be ideal.
Others may wish to delete the directories and forget about them. (^&)
* Writing new docs is fine, but following up on someone else's comment,
it's also nice that our docs are fairly current. The more docs we
have, the more trouble it is to keep them up to date. How many
people have as a major/primary NetBSD commitment the maintaining
of our documents?
* There's a guy (who's been a little quite for a while) down in Australia
who is working on writing a NetBSD book from a beginner's point of
view. Just a data point to bear in mind. (^& What other books are
on the horizon?
* There are people who will burn CD-ROM's at-cost. How about people that
will nicely-print system documentation at-cost? A year ago, I would
probably have jumped for my check-book if someone had offered to do
this. (Now, I have a decent printer. If people were willing to cover
the expenses (paper/toner/shipping/wear-and-tear), I would be willing
to look into setting up something like this from my own system. Is
there interest?)
(This is kind of tangent to the documentation discussion, but bears
some relation. *grin*)
* Related, it takes a little work (I thought) to figure out how to
typset/print some of our docs. Perhaps a /usr/share/doc/guide-to-
the-lost.text file could be written to give an overview of the
NetBSD documentation and some FAQ's? There may be a desire to
just drop in some random help-files, but (IMHO) there should be
a single, primary guide-to-the-lost. It might _reference_ some
random help-files, but should, itself, be a central point of
reference. It might be moderately lengthy, but should be well-
organized and should help beginners get their bearings with
NetBSD documentation. Like a leader, it should organize other
elements, and delegate most of the actual work of documenting
details. (^&
Ah well, so much for being brief. (^&
"I probably don't know what I'm talking about." --rkr@rkr.kcnet.com