After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 91865 - We need a GNOME 2 FAQ
We need a GNOME 2 FAQ
Status: RESOLVED OBSOLETE
Product: website
Classification: Infrastructure
Component: www.gnome.org
current
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: GNOME Web maintainers
GNOME Web maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2002-08-28 12:29 UTC by Telsa Gwynne
Modified: 2006-08-28 08:11 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.3/2.4



Description Telsa Gwynne 2002-08-28 12:29:53 UTC
We have a GNOME 1.2 FAQ on www.gnome.org. We really should have had
a 1.4 FAQ too but I never did one.

Now we definitely need a GNOME 2.0 FAQ. I would suggest the same
structure as the 1.2 one, only:

Installing GNOME: -- update system requirements, add all the build-scripts,
(I sent a post to linuxchix which could be updated to be correct: it's
at http://mailman.linuxchix.org/pipermail/techtalk/2002-August/015489.html)
find the Solaris and HP stuff.

Compilation issues: order needs adding to. 

db2html question should be removed I think? may need to mention
adding SGML_CATALOG_FILE variable though. DocBook setup has changed,

Problems section should be rewritten from scratch. I would suggest
retaining the kernel/X/GNOME split though.

Further resources: lose gnotices mention, it's going away. 
mailing lists need checking. 

And keep the credits straight in the docbook, it makes it
*much* easier to reuse parts subsequently.

I have a collection of stuff sent to gnomefaq alias and stuff
I saved as "needs adding" for anyone who wants it.

I will do this eventually if no-one else does, but feel free to 
assign it to yourself :)
Comment 1 Telsa Gwynne 2004-06-02 08:33:45 UTC
Just to keep this alive, I'll mention that after the old one was removed
from www.gnome.org for being horribly misleading, I found someone 
linking to an even earlier copy of it in my referrer logs this month. I
had quite forgotten that I had had a really early draft on my website
for discussion before it went into CVS originally.

But we definitely need an updated one: the person linking was trying
to use the FAQ for 1.2 to solve compile problems for 2.6. I would like
to get this done for 2.8. I'll have a look at what's needed. 
Comment 2 Jeff Waugh 2004-06-02 08:44:03 UTC
The faq stuff is actually still referenced in gnomeweb-wml, but it's built from
elsewhere (I can find that if you want). It might be good to have per-version
FAQs as part of the release notes... Would a 'global' FAQ still be useful? I
guess it could cover community oriented things, rather than, "I can't change
blah setting" software stuff.
Comment 3 Telsa Gwynne 2004-06-02 09:50:38 UTC
You suggested a more maintainable structure in bug #117796. I think 
there are questions which are global in that bug: "what is the foundation?"
"who decides what?" perhaps even "what is a freetype and why should I care?"
(there is a splendid start at what the different package names are/do on
gnome-love atm, in fact. Perhaps just link to that :) 

So yeah, I was thinking global for "about Gnome" sort of stuff and release-
specific for a lot of the rest. One thing I am not sure about is how to deal
with things which are specific to two or three releases but which are not
general enough to go into the global section. I think something like this
should work: 

/pathname/wherever/faq/2.2/  : the full answer
/pathname/wherever/faq/2.4/  : "unchanged since 2.2: follow this link to read it"
/pathname/wherever/faq/2.6/  : "unchanged since 2.2: follow this link to read it"

...yes? 

is it worth merging or sticking a depends between this bug and #117796 ? 
Comment 4 Jeff Waugh 2004-06-02 10:00:40 UTC
For the release-specific stuff, can we just put those in the release notes
instead? One disadvantage is that it's more distributed for writers... Hrm. Oh,
hey, this is precisely what the other bug was about! :-)

So, if we do as the other bug suggests, we should probably think further about
where the global document would be, how we'd publish it, etc. I remember
thinking about how difficult it would be to have a single centralised 'FAQ',
given that a lot of what we'd be answering is pretty well distributed.

Before we merge the other bug into this one, perhaps we should figure out what
we need. IRC? :-)
Comment 5 Quim Gil 2006-08-28 08:11:10 UTC
Hi there, I guess this bug can be considered obsolete by now. 

If you are still missing a page or some kind of information in wgo let us know and we will integrate it to the wgo revamp plans - http://live.gnome.org/GnomeWeb