From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Merging =?utf-8?B?4oCYSEFDS0lOR+KAmQ==?= in the manual? Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 21:34:11 +0200 Message-ID: <87fv6bi5os.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87k2w1tq0y.fsf@163.com> <87h9r438er.fsf@earlgrey.lan> <87egm8h8w7.fsf@gnu.org> <87egm83019.fsf@earlgrey.lan> <87zj4ve6nm.fsf@gnu.org> <878ucf2ma7.fsf@earlgrey.lan> <87oal5dcmq.fsf@gnu.org> <87y4k921s2.fsf@openmailbox.org> <87a8wnayml.fsf@gnu.org> <878uc6p3wu.fsf@openmailbox.org> <87k2vo4kqm.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <7eb17310dde212e7cbc911e38178e9db@openmailbox.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55626) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YzVTY-0001GF-5r for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 15:34:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YzVTR-0003wo-VG for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 15:34:20 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:55487) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YzVTR-0003wj-SL for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 15:34:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <7eb17310dde212e7cbc911e38178e9db@openmailbox.org> ("Luis Felipe =?utf-8?Q?L=C3=B3pez?= Acevedo"'s message of "Sun, 31 May 2015 19:38:02 -0500") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Luis Felipe =?utf-8?Q?L=C3=B3pez?= Acevedo Cc: guix , Feng Shu Luis Felipe L=C3=B3pez Acevedo skribis: > I like GNUnet's use of "handbooks" to separate information. They have > Installation Handbook, User Handbook, and Developer Handbook. I think > something similar could work well for Guix. We should aim to blur the distinction between developers and users, and I think we have the right technical environment for that (=E2=80=9Cconfiguration=E2=80=9D files that happen to actually be Scheme, = =E2=80=9Cpackage recipes=E2=80=9D that happen to be Scheme as well, etc.) So I=E2=80=99m in= favor of keeping the technical information all grouped together. I think the installations sections are fine in the main manual. The question here is more about the organizational documentation. Alex Kost skribis: > I don't have a strong opinion. It might be a separate =E2=80=9CHacking= =E2=80=9D (or > whatever) section in the current manual or another =E2=80=9Cmaint=E2=80= =9D info manual. > Both solutions look good to me. I have a slight preference for the > first variant though. Yes, that=E2=80=99s also my current inclination. Thanks for your feedback! Ludo=E2=80=99.