Re: reorganizing /usr/share/doc

[David Holland <dholland-docs%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 08:40:46PM -0400, James K. Lowden wrote:
 > I think Ken Thomson may cast the evil eye on you.  

I'll take that risk :-)

 > I would keep usd/smm/psd.  It seems to me that the user, the
 > programmer, and the administrator are different roles, even if they are
 > sometimes the same person.  User is section 1, programmer is 2, 3, & 4
 > (and sometimes 9), admin is 5 and 8.  I would say that taxonomy has
 > held up pretty well.  

Yes it has; that's why I'm proposing to adopt it here as well. I think
it's superior to usd/smm/psd as well as being more consistent. Also
we'd need at least one more category (ksd?) for kernel programming
docs. And then, is e.g. the ffs article a SMM or a KSD? One can get
around that question by placing it in section 5, or possibly section
4; either of those avoids the issue.

 > I would *really* like to see only the sources distributed, with a
 > Makefile at the top of the hierarchy that produces the preferred output
 > format.

I realize it's traditional, but I think it's ill-advised, outdated,
and not suitable for what NetBSD ought to be. The whole point of what
I've been doing is to move away from that model.

 > Current groff produces pdf directly.  

Only if you have perl available.

 > > usd/19.memacros reference/ref1/roff/meref          usd/20.meref
 > 
 > I dislike calling reference documents "ref".

That one is not my fault, it came that way. I would not be averse to
changing it to just "me", but I don't really want to start renaming
articles (particularly the roff ones) until we're sure we have all the
ones we want going forward. Quite a few of the historic roff-related
articles are missing from the tree right now.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost