[Rpm-ecosystem] rpm.org redesign feedback

Radek Holy rholy at redhat.com
Tue Apr 14 17:06:02 UTC 2015


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lubos Kardos" <lkardos at redhat.com>
> To: rpm-ecosystem at lists.rpm.org
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:09:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] rpm.org redesign feedback
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jan Zelený" <jzeleny at redhat.com>
> > To: rpm-ecosystem at lists.rpm.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 4:01:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] rpm.org redesign feedback
> > 
> > On 10. 4. 2015 at 09:33:25, Radek Holy wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > as for https://github.com/lkardos/rpm/wiki, looks good to me. The
> > > structure
> > > is very clear, I'd say.
> > > 
> > > What I don't like is that in the end, there is almost no content. It's
> > > just
> > > a list of links to other resources. It evokes a feeling that RPM does not
> > > want to bother with a documentation. I personally don't trust any
> > > documentation that is outside of the project's website. But I assume that
> > > you are the authors of most of the linked documents so that is not your
> > > case. It's just the feeling.
> It's not just feeling. Documentation is mix of links to many resources,
> each one describing other feature of rpm. Most of them are not written by us
> and many of them are out of date and contain wrong information. It would be
> nice to have one document from one author or one group of authors describing
> whole rpm but that is not achievable in one or two weeks.
> 
> > > 
> > > Also the wiki format... For me, if a project uses a wiki as the content
> > > management system, it means that it's either a draft of the final website
> > > or that they have it just to have a website but that they don't want to
> > > use
> > > it to attract/educate users. Or even that users are the ones who
> > > does/should write the content. I mean, a wiki website does not look like
> > > a
> > > presentation of a modern project. But you know, DNF's "website" is maybe
> > > even worse...
> I used procedure suggested by Pavel (use markdown files from wiki to generate
> web pages) and here is result [1]. Advantage of having own web pages is also
> that we can put there also PDFs, binaries, books about rpm, generated rpm api
> and not only pages in wiki format.

Much better!

> > > 
> > > But definitely I think it's a good start and I like it more than the
> > > current
> > > site. AFAIK, the goal was mainly to make the website more usable and I
> > > think that this was achieved. The critique above is more a suggestion
> > > where
> > > to focus in the future if there is a will.
> > 
> > I agree that we need to work on the presentation but as you have already
> > figured out, the goal of the first phase to make the information better
> > structured to give us some idea what kind of information do we want to have
> > there and how to structure it ...
> > 
> > 
> > A few suggestions:
> > ==================
> > 
> > Documentation:
> > First of all, I'd move the text about books to the bottom. People looking
> > for
> > online information will not be primarily interested in books, no matter if
> > they are online or not. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure about the
> > section
> > at all, it's informational value is not that high, maybe just making the
> > text
> > significantly shorter and leaving just the really important stuff might
> > help
> > improving this?
> Sound reasonable.
> 
> > 
> > Second thing that hit me on this page is that some of the items in the
> > Packages Documentation are not clickable. Not sure what to think of them,
> > but
> > I'd either delete them or link them some other documents. The same applies
> > for
> > Developer Documentation.
> Yes, I know about that, it's just not finished yet.
> 
> > 
> > Download source:
> > First I'd consider renaming this to just Downloads. Other than that I like
> > this section, it is quite straightforward and completely fulfills its
> > purpose.
> > Just one thought: would it make sense to include something like this:
> > http://www.gimp.org/downloads/? You know, something like "this is how you
> > install rpm on your distro, that might not be rpm-centric".
> I am ok with naming this section just "Download".
> I am not sure how easy is to install and use rpm in distributions that are
> not based on rpm. And for that based on rpm makes such information no sense
> because rpm is already installed.
> 
> > 
> > Getting help:
> > You are missing this mailing list in "Getting Help" :-) Other than that it
> > is
> > quite ok, even though I'm not completely sure about Reporting Bugs but I
> > guess
> > we need to make that one clear ourselves first ...
> > 
> > Contribute:
> > Add the git repo url to the "Contributing Source Code" section and link the
> > items in the list of known limitations to relevant documents. Contributing
> > Ideas and Contributing Help don't sound like an important sections, I'd
> > probably delete them or merge them into one that says "Contribute any other
> > way that you think can help us". Last but not least, I wonder if the
> > information in "Contributing Documentation" is accurate (requesting access
> > to
> > wiki and stuff).
> I agree we can delete them completely. People have ideas and RFEs no matter
> if we ask for them or not.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Other than that I think this is a great start, thanks Lubos!
> > 
> > Jan
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rpm-ecosystem mailing list
> > Rpm-ecosystem at lists.rpm.org
> > http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-ecosystem
> > 
> 
> Lubos
> 
> [1] http://lkardos.github.io/rpm/
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm-ecosystem mailing list
> Rpm-ecosystem at lists.rpm.org
> http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-ecosystem
> 

-- 
Radek Holý
Associate Software Engineer
Software Management Team
Red Hat Czech


More information about the Rpm-ecosystem mailing list