Fixing the documentation

Joe Rhett jrhett at
Fri Sep 7 04:35:02 GMT 2001

> > If I took this on, I would probably want to:
> >
> > 1. Do the complete documentation set in HTML. PDF is nice, but PDF readers
> > aren't always available and there is A LOT of documentation that isn't always
> > relevant ( WfWG, cluster.. )
> The DocBook source is used to generate HTML and the the PDF file from the
> HTML source.  So I'm not sure what you mean here.
The HTML files, PDF file, and text files don't include the same information at
this time. A person must read all three to get an exhaustive understanding
of the issues involved and options available.

> It is designed as a collection of HOWTO's.  Not as a book.  The idea is to
> allow individuals to create a single chapter and havce it included in the
> collection.  If someone would like to take on the role of editor and make
> it more continuous that would be appreicated.

That's what I was thinking of -- or at least unify all relevant information
into the same area.

> > 4. Move all references to Windows for WorkGroups to a separate section.
> > This isn't relevant to any installation I've seen in over 6 years. This
> > would prevent confusion and many FAQs on the mailing list, while providing
> > a single clear document of the changes necessary for Windows for Workgroups
> > support.
> Actually, i spoke with someone last week who still had WfWg on the
> network.  We cannot release a version of Samba that doesn't support DOS
> clients without hearing screams.
I never said remove it from the code, I said to move all the WfW comments
to a separate section of the documentation. 

1. They don't apply to most sites.

2. It will put all the WfW info in place, rather than making a person
search for it. 
Joe Rhett                                                      Chief Geek
JRhett at ISite.Net                                      ISite Services, Inc.

More information about the samba-technical mailing list