[RFC] Dropping architectures alpha and m68k from the Installation Guide

[Frans Pop-3]

Now that we have two architectures that are no longer official release
architectures I've been wondering if we should remove any architecture-
specific text for them from the Installation Guide.

m68k was dropped as a release architecture for Etch, and alpha is being
dropped for Squeeze. For m68k the intention was to bring it back as a
release architecture, but now, over 2 years later, I think we can say
that's unlikely to happen.

The current situation is that both alpha and m68k are still included in the
source for the manual, but are not included in official builds and also
not in the "daily" builds on Alioth. So effectively it is dead text.

I know that the installer still supports m68k (and is even being maintained
to some extend by Steven Marenka) and that the same may or may not happen
for alpha, but IMO that's a separate issue.
A fact is that there have been no updates for the manual for either
architecture for a very long time and that for example any links to images
in them are incorrect.

The main benefit of removing the architectures is for translators,
especially for new translations. It would remove 2000+ lines of text which
would no longer need to be translated (and which probably nobody will ever
read anyway).

If we do decide on the removal I would try to do it as four separate
commits for each architecture:
- remove the arch from the English original
- remove the arch from all XML based translations [1]
- remove the arch from the build system
- PO files update, including removal of arch conditions embedded in strings
  (if any)

Doing it this way would still keep open the option of re-including an arch
later by reverting the first three of those commits.
Of course, there would be some conflicts that would need to be handled and
a general review and update would be needed, but I expect most text could
be recovered without too many problems.
For PO-based translations a PO-file merge could be done of the then current
version with the version just before removal.

Opinions, comments and suggestions welcome.

Cheers,
FJP

[1] I expect I can do all changes myself, both for the English original and
for translations; mostly using a script plus minor manual work for
remaining bits. So there should be no work needed by translators.

[Christian Perrier]

Quoting Frans Pop (elendil@...):
> Now that we have two architectures that are no longer official release
> architectures I've been wondering if we should remove any architecture-
> specific text for them from the Installation Guide.


No objection from my side (I wonder what objections I could make bu
just wanted to not leave your mail unanswered....thanks for taking
care of these issues).

[Brian Szymanski-5]

Maybe I'm just sad that alpha is being dropped for squeeze, but... It
strikes me that not having install docs will be a major hindrance to any
revival of the alpha port, as it will discourage potential new
developers from ever trying debian on their boxes and seeing what needs
to be fixed.

As far as the burden on translators goes, is there a priority ranking
system for what needs to be done? Seems like that could help here...

Just my $.02

Cheers,
Brian Szymanski

Frans Pop wrote:

> Now that we have two architectures that are no longer official release
> architectures I've been wondering if we should remove any architecture-
> specific text for them from the Installation Guide.
>
> m68k was dropped as a release architecture for Etch, and alpha is being
> dropped for Squeeze. For m68k the intention was to bring it back as a
> release architecture, but now, over 2 years later, I think we can say
> that's unlikely to happen.
>
> The current situation is that both alpha and m68k are still included in the
> source for the manual, but are not included in official builds and also
> not in the "daily" builds on Alioth. So effectively it is dead text.
>
> I know that the installer still supports m68k (and is even being maintained
> to some extend by Steven Marenka) and that the same may or may not happen
> for alpha, but IMO that's a separate issue.
> A fact is that there have been no updates for the manual for either
> architecture for a very long time and that for example any links to images
> in them are incorrect.
>
> The main benefit of removing the architectures is for translators,
> especially for new translations. It would remove 2000+ lines of text which
> would no longer need to be translated (and which probably nobody will ever
> read anyway).
>
> If we do decide on the removal I would try to do it as four separate
> commits for each architecture:
> - remove the arch from the English original
> - remove the arch from all XML based translations [1]
> - remove the arch from the build system
> - PO files update, including removal of arch conditions embedded in strings
>   (if any)
>
> Doing it this way would still keep open the option of re-including an arch
> later by reverting the first three of those commits.
> Of course, there would be some conflicts that would need to be handled and
> a general review and update would be needed, but I expect most text could
> be recovered without too many problems.
> For PO-based translations a PO-file merge could be done of the then current
> version with the version just before removal.
>
> Opinions, comments and suggestions welcome.
>
> Cheers,
> FJP
>
> [1] I expect I can do all changes myself, both for the English original and
> for translations; mostly using a script plus minor manual work for
> remaining bits. So there should be no work needed by translators.
>  

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Helge Kreutzmann-2]

Hello,
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:45:41PM -0400, Brian Szymanski wrote:
> Maybe I'm just sad that alpha is being dropped for squeeze, but... It
> strikes me that not having install docs will be a major hindrance to any
> revival of the alpha port, as it will discourage potential new
> developers from ever trying debian on their boxes and seeing what needs
> to be fixed.
>
> As far as the burden on translators goes, is there a priority ranking
> system for what needs to be done? Seems like that could help here...

Feeling simmilarly, this would be great. Also given that m68k was
carried along one extra cycle I think alpha deserves the same chance
for new blood.

Greetings

           Helge
--
      Dr. Helge Kreutzmann                      debian@...
            Dipl.-Phys.                       http://www.helgefjell.de
        64bit GNU powered                     gpg signed mail preferred
           Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/

[Frans Pop-3]

On Wednesday 14 October 2009, Brian Szymanski wrote:
> Maybe I'm just sad that alpha is being dropped for squeeze, but... It
> strikes me that not having install docs will be a major hindrance to any
> revival of the alpha port, as it will discourage potential new
> developers from ever trying debian on their boxes and seeing what needs
> to be fixed.

The answer to that is that the installation guide for alpha for earlier
Debian releases (up to Lenny) will remain available and should mostly
remain valid for the next few releases, especially for architecture-
specific topics.

And for general installer functionality the installation guide for any
other architecture can be consulted. I estimate that over 90% of the
installation guide is identical for all architectures.

So, even though not having an alpha installation guide for Squeeze and
later may be inconvenient, it's not the end of the world IMO.

I also can't help but wonder how realistic a revival is. After all, the
main reason it's being dropped is lack of community interest.

> As far as the burden on translators goes, is there a priority ranking
> system for what needs to be done? Seems like that could help here...

You can see the status of various translations here:
http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/manual/
That page also contains various links to information for translators.

Somehow I doubt you're such a super linguist that you could help with all
the translations we have :-)
But if you're interested in helping out with an existing translation, or
starting one for your language, that's always welcome. For existing
translations, please contact the current translators (on the appropriate
d-l10n-<lang> list); to start a new translation, please mail the
debian-boot list.

But be warned that a new translation is a lot of work and only really worth
starting if you're willing to commit to it for a long time. Or if you can
gather a good team that can guarantee continuity.

Cheers,
FJP


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Frans Pop-3]

On Wednesday 14 October 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 October 2009, Brian Szymanski wrote:
> > As far as the burden on translators goes, is there a priority ranking
> > system for what needs to be done? Seems like that could help here...

Sorry, I misread that comment.

Yes, there is a priority system when it comes to translating. And I have
used that in the past for new translations. I've suggested a few times to
start with certain chapters and also to postpone parts that are not
relevant for x86.

And it would in theory be acceptable to leave specific text for non-release
arches untranslated.

The main problem is that, except for the few cases where arch-specific
stuff is in completely separate files, there is no way to tell whether it
is arch-specific text that is not up-to-date, or general text. And that
only goes for XML-based translations; for PO-based translations it is
practically impossible.

Partly because of that I'm (as release manager for the manual) not willing
to accept that translators treat the less popular architectures as
second-class citizens. As long as we have one source for the manual that
includes all architectures and as long as we "sell" Debian as the
universal OS, the you can either translate the whole manual, or not at
all. I simply don't want to have to wade through translations to check
exactly what bits are and are not up-to-date every time I prepare a
release [1].

IMO an outdated or incomplete translation can be worse that having no
translation at all.

[1] Although I am always willing to make exceptions on a case-by-case
basis.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Otavio Salvador-2]

Hello all,

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Frans Pop <elendil@...> wrote:
> Now that we have two architectures that are no longer official release
> architectures I've been wondering if we should remove any architecture-
> specific text for them from the Installation Guide.

I  read the thread and the comments that has been raised as well.

I fully agree with the proposal of removal of those arches specially
because those arches are not going to be released with squeeze mailing
due lack of support to keep it going well so I doubt it is going to
change soon. The benefit, specially when we think about the amount of
work that will reduce for the translators, can't be ignored so I fully
support it.

Frans, thanks by looking at it :-)

--
Otavio Salvador                  O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@...  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: [phone]         http://projetos.ossystems.com.br


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...