2:10 a.m.
I suggest some simple structural changes to the website, to make things
clearer:
1. Remove the wiki link.
We should just accept that the website _is_ a wiki. That "main page"
page has become a target of random user feedback. That's not the best
place for it.
Partly because of the text sizes and layout, the comments look like main
(rather random) content at first glance.
The "Wiki Pages" list block can be moved to the Documentation page. By
the way, how do we add to that list?
2. Remove About
- The first paragraph duplicates the introductory text on the Home page.
- Move part of History to the Home page, simplifying it.
- Move Features to the Home page.
- Move "SyncEvolution Core and Synthesis SyncML Engine", "Backends",
and
"Frontends" to Documentation as separate sub-pages, linking to them from
our introductory text on the Home page.
3. Add a real Downloads page.
This is currently just a directory listing. There should be some brief
text and a description of each binary and how to install it.
2. Remove comments.
The comments don't seem like the best way to deal with feedback, and
they distract from the main contact. Even in the best case, old comments
will still be there after their feedback has been dealt with by
improvements in the page itself, distracting from that content and
giving the initial impression that those problems still exist.
--
murrayc(a)murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com
4:32 a.m.
On Do, 2011-07-21 at 11:10 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
I suggest some simple structural changes to the website, to make
things
clearer:
1. Remove the wiki link.
We should just accept that the website _is_ a wiki. That "main page"
page has become a target of random user feedback. That's not the best
place for it.
Partly because of the text sizes and layout, the comments look like main
(rather random) content at first glance.
I agree that this is problematic. But technically there is a difference
between the rest of the web site and the Wiki part: normal users may
only edit the Wiki pages.
Are you suggesting that all pages should be editable by anyone?
The "Wiki Pages" list block can be moved to the
Documentation page. By
the way, how do we add to that list?
Via the "Wiki" box, with "Add Wiki Page".
2. Remove About
- The first paragraph duplicates the introductory text on the Home page.
- Move part of History to the Home page, simplifying it.
- Move Features to the Home page.
- Move "SyncEvolution Core and Synthesis SyncML Engine", "Backends",
and
"Frontends" to Documentation as separate sub-pages, linking to them from
our introductory text on the Home page.
Okay.
3. Add a real Downloads page.
This is currently just a directory listing. There should be some brief
text and a description of each binary and how to install it.
What kind of text and description would you expect for, e.g.,
http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/evolution/syncevolution-...
?
While I agree that this is useful, I'm a bit weary of the additional
overhead for each release.
2. Remove comments.
The comments don't seem like the best way to deal with feedback, and
they distract from the main contact. Even in the best case, old comments
will still be there after their feedback has been dealt with by
improvements in the page itself, distracting from that content and
giving the initial impression that those problems still exist.
Just to be sure, you suggest to remove obsolete comments, not the
comment feature itself, right?
Would it make sense to move comments to an "archive" or "discussion"
page? Many users left comments randomly anyway, without directly
referring to the current page.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
4:46 a.m.
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 13:32 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
On Do, 2011-07-21 at 11:10 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> I suggest some simple structural changes to the website, to make things
> clearer:
>
> 1. Remove the wiki link.
>
> We should just accept that the website _is_ a wiki. That "main page"
> page has become a target of random user feedback. That's not the best
> place for it.
>
> Partly because of the text sizes and layout, the comments look like main
> (rather random) content at first glance.
I agree that this is problematic. But technically there is a difference
between the rest of the web site and the Wiki part: normal users may
only edit the Wiki pages.
Are you suggesting that all pages should be editable by anyone?
Actually, yes, though I'd lock the front page. It needs you to be
careful about only allowing edits when logged in and having some bot
protection for new user creation. But that's probably a problem that you
already have with the wiki pages.
If you want only a sub-section of the site to be user-editable then the
distinction needs to be clearer. Personally, I think it leads to
fragmentated content instead of improved content.
[snip]
> 3. Add a real Downloads page.
> This is currently just a directory listing. There should be some brief
> text and a description of each binary and how to install it.
What kind of text and description would you expect for, e.g.,
http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/evolution/syncevolution-...
?
I'd link to http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/evolution/
and describe it without referring to any particular version.
While I agree that this is useful, I'm a bit weary of the
additional
overhead for each release.
> 2. Remove comments.
> The comments don't seem like the best way to deal with feedback, and
> they distract from the main contact. Even in the best case, old comments
> will still be there after their feedback has been dealt with by
> improvements in the page itself, distracting from that content and
> giving the initial impression that those problems still exist.
Just to be sure, you suggest to remove obsolete comments, not the
comment feature itself, right?
I'm suggesting removing comments, though you are the best judge of how
it has been used so far.
At the very least, I would change the text layout so that comments are
clearly separate.
Would it make sense to move comments to an "archive" or
"discussion"
page?
Yes, restricting comments to a single discussion page would be an
improvement. But I really doubt that it's a good way to handle feedback.
Many users left comments randomly anyway, without directly
referring to the current page.
Yes, which makes things seem neglected.
--
murrayc(a)murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com
4:59 a.m.
On Do, 2011-07-21 at 13:46 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 13:32 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Do, 2011-07-21 at 11:10 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > I suggest some simple structural changes to the website, to make things
> > clearer:
> >
> > 1. Remove the wiki link.
> >
> > We should just accept that the website _is_ a wiki. That "main page"
> > page has become a target of random user feedback. That's not the best
> > place for it.
> >
> > Partly because of the text sizes and layout, the comments look like main
> > (rather random) content at first glance.
>
> I agree that this is problematic. But technically there is a difference
> between the rest of the web site and the Wiki part: normal users may
> only edit the Wiki pages.
>
> Are you suggesting that all pages should be editable by anyone?
Actually, yes, though I'd lock the front page. It needs you to be
careful about only allowing edits when logged in and having some bot
protection for new user creation. But that's probably a problem that you
already have with the wiki pages.
If you want only a sub-section of the site to be user-editable then the
distinction needs to be clearer. Personally, I think it leads to
fragmentated content instead of improved content.
I agree. The Wiki feature was added later, we never got around to
integrating it properly.
I don't mind granting more people the right to edit pages. Spam has been
a problem only in the comments, not in Wiki pages themselves. But I
guess that's just a matter of time :-/
> > 3. Add a real Downloads page.
> > This is currently just a directory listing. There should be some brief
> > text and a description of each binary and how to install it.
>
> What kind of text and description would you expect for, e.g.,
>
http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/evolution/syncevolution-...
?
I'd link to http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/evolution/
and describe it without referring to any particular version.
So in other words, a page which wraps downloads.syncevolution.org and
lists the currently relevant files?
> > 2. Remove comments.
> > The comments don't seem like the best way to deal with feedback, and
> > they distract from the main contact. Even in the best case, old comments
> > will still be there after their feedback has been dealt with by
> > improvements in the page itself, distracting from that content and
> > giving the initial impression that those problems still exist.
>
> Just to be sure, you suggest to remove obsolete comments, not the
> comment feature itself, right?
I'm suggesting removing comments, though you are the best judge of how
it has been used so far.
Laissez-faire and preserving everything except for spam comments.
At the very least, I would change the text layout so that comments
are
clearly separate.
Yes, agreed.
> Would it make sense to move comments to an "archive"
or "discussion"
> page?
Yes, restricting comments to a single discussion page would be an
improvement. But I really doubt that it's a good way to handle feedback.
Indeed, it should only be used for comments which are obviously not
referring to the current page or became obsolete.
> Many users left comments randomly anyway, without directly
> referring to the current page.
Yes, which makes things seem neglected.
Which is the case to some extend. I could use help on an on-going basis
for keeping the web site in good order. I know from past experience
that I will not always have the time to do this myself.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
5:08 a.m.
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 13:59 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
[snip]
> I'd link to
http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/evolution/
> and describe it without referring to any particular version.
So in other words, a page which wraps downloads.syncevolution.org and
lists the currently relevant files?
Yeah, though I wouldn't try to keep it linking to the latest version,
unless you have some automated system for that.
That would still need people to look through a directory list, but it
would be better and easier than now.
[snip]
> I'm suggesting removing comments, though you are the best
judge of how
> it has been used so far.
Laissez-faire and preserving everything except for spam comments.
But have the developers been able to respond to everything there, and do
people feel helped?
> Yes, restricting comments to a single discussion page would be
an
> improvement. But I really doubt that it's a good way to handle feedback.
Indeed, it should only be used for comments which are obviously not
referring to the current page or became obsolete.
> > Many users left comments randomly anyway, without directly
> > referring to the current page.
>
> Yes, which makes things seem neglected.
Which is the case to some extend. I could use help on an on-going basis
for keeping the web site in good order. I know from past experience
that I will not always have the time to do this myself.
--
murrayc(a)murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com
6:47 a.m.
On Do, 2011-07-21 at 14:08 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 13:59 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
[snip]
> > I'd link to http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/evolution/
> > and describe it without referring to any particular version.
>
> So in other words, a page which wraps downloads.syncevolution.org and
> lists the currently relevant files?
Yeah, though I wouldn't try to keep it linking to the latest version,
unless you have some automated system for that.
Is that really substantially different from the "installation" page?
> > I'm suggesting removing comments, though you are the
best judge of how
> > it has been used so far.
>
> Laissez-faire and preserving everything except for spam comments.
But have the developers been able to respond to everything there, and do
people feel helped?
I typically reply to all questions within a few days. What I haven't
done is remove old conversations or move comments to more suitable
locations.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
1:31 a.m.
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 15:47 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
On Do, 2011-07-21 at 14:08 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 13:59 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> [snip]
> > > I'd link to
http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/evolution/
> > > and describe it without referring to any particular version.
> >
> > So in other words, a page which wraps downloads.syncevolution.org and
> > lists the currently relevant files?
>
> Yeah, though I wouldn't try to keep it linking to the latest version,
> unless you have some automated system for that.
Is that really substantially different from the "installation" page?
[snip]
No, it's much the same. I will change the Downloads link (in the menu)
to an Installation link, linking there instead, and doing some minor
cleanup.
However, that page needs more specific links rather than just mentioning
the general Downloads page, which isn't even just specific to
installation files.
For instance, we should have generic links to folders for binary
tarballs, .debs, RPMs, etc, instead of putting everything together into
one folder for people to struggle through:
http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/evolution/
(Though .debs are already in a separate directory structure for use by
apt.)
By the way, what README does the text here refer to?
http://syncevolution.org/documentation/installation
"The README includes a section on compiling from source."
I don't see anything about that in the README here:
http://meego.gitorious.org/meego-middleware/syncevolution/blobs/master/RE...
--
murrayc(a)murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com
3:43 a.m.
On Mo, 2011-07-25 at 10:31 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 15:47 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Do, 2011-07-21 at 14:08 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 13:59 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > I'd link to
http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/evolution/
> > > > and describe it without referring to any particular version.
> > >
> > > So in other words, a page which wraps downloads.syncevolution.org and
> > > lists the currently relevant files?
> >
> > Yeah, though I wouldn't try to keep it linking to the latest version,
> > unless you have some automated system for that.
>
> Is that really substantially different from the "installation" page?
[snip]
No, it's much the same. I will change the Downloads link (in the menu)
to an Installation link, linking there instead, and doing some minor
cleanup.
Okay.
However, that page needs more specific links rather than just
mentioning
the general Downloads page, which isn't even just specific to
installation files.
True.
By the way, what README does the text here refer to?
http://syncevolution.org/documentation/installation
"The README includes a section on compiling from source."
I don't see anything about that in the README here:
http://meego.gitorious.org/meego-middleware/syncevolution/blobs/master/RE...
That comment is out-dated. That README file used to have that
information. Now it is at the start of the HACKING document.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
3:54 a.m.
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 12:43 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> However, that page needs more specific links rather than just
mentioning
> the general Downloads page, which isn't even just specific to
> installation files.
I doubt that I have access to move those files around.
--
murrayc(a)murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com
12:13 a.m.
On Mo, 2011-07-25 at 12:54 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 12:43 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > However, that page needs more specific links rather than just mentioning
> > the general Downloads page, which isn't even just specific to
> > installation files.
I doubt that I have access to move those files around.
I thought the directory structure could be left unchanged, with only
linking to it more clearly. What do you want me to change in
downloads.syncevolution.org?
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
1:06 a.m.
On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 09:13 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
On Mo, 2011-07-25 at 12:54 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 12:43 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > > However, that page needs more specific links rather than just mentioning
> > > the general Downloads page, which isn't even just specific to
> > > installation files.
>
> I doubt that I have access to move those files around.
I thought the directory structure could be left unchanged, with only
linking to it more clearly. What do you want me to change in
downloads.syncevolution.org?
I mean, that I'd like to have
- One link to .tar.gz binaries
- (And maybe one link to amd64 .tar.gz binaries)
- One link to RPMs
Instead of putting them all in one directory:
http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/evolution/
--
murrayc(a)murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com
6:10 a.m.
On Di, 2011-07-26 at 10:06 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 09:13 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mo, 2011-07-25 at 12:54 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 12:43 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > > > However, that page needs more specific links rather than just
mentioning
> > > > the general Downloads page, which isn't even just specific to
> > > > installation files.
> >
> > I doubt that I have access to move those files around.
>
> I thought the directory structure could be left unchanged, with only
> linking to it more clearly. What do you want me to change in
> downloads.syncevolution.org?
I mean, that I'd like to have
- One link to .tar.gz binaries
- (And maybe one link to amd64 .tar.gz binaries)
- One link to RPMs
Instead of putting them all in one directory:
http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/evolution/
So how about moving these files into the following sub-directories:
x86 .tar.gz => /syncevolution/evolution/i386-tar-gz
amd64 .tar.gz => /syncevolution/evolution/amd64-tar-gz
x86 .rpm => /syncevolution/evolution/i386-rpm
amd64 .rpm => /syncevolution/evolution/amd64-rpm
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
12:21 a.m.
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 15:10 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
On Di, 2011-07-26 at 10:06 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 09:13 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Mo, 2011-07-25 at 12:54 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 12:43 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > > > > However, that page needs more specific links rather than just
mentioning
> > > > > the general Downloads page, which isn't even just specific
to
> > > > > installation files.
> > >
> > > I doubt that I have access to move those files around.
> >
> > I thought the directory structure could be left unchanged, with only
> > linking to it more clearly. What do you want me to change in
> > downloads.syncevolution.org?
>
> I mean, that I'd like to have
> - One link to .tar.gz binaries
> - (And maybe one link to amd64 .tar.gz binaries)
> - One link to RPMs
>
> Instead of putting them all in one directory:
> http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/evolution/
So how about moving these files into the following sub-directories:
x86 .tar.gz => /syncevolution/evolution/i386-tar-gz
amd64 .tar.gz => /syncevolution/evolution/amd64-tar-gz
x86 .rpm => /syncevolution/evolution/i386-rpm
amd64 .rpm => /syncevolution/evolution/amd64-rpm
Sounds good to me. Can you do that?
--
murrayc(a)murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com
12:25 a.m.
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 09:21 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 15:10 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Di, 2011-07-26 at 10:06 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 09:13 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > > On Mo, 2011-07-25 at 12:54 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 12:43 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > > > > > However, that page needs more specific links rather than
just mentioning
> > > > > > the general Downloads page, which isn't even just
specific to
> > > > > > installation files.
> > > >
> > > > I doubt that I have access to move those files around.
> > >
> > > I thought the directory structure could be left unchanged, with only
> > > linking to it more clearly. What do you want me to change in
> > > downloads.syncevolution.org?
> >
> > I mean, that I'd like to have
> > - One link to .tar.gz binaries
> > - (And maybe one link to amd64 .tar.gz binaries)
> > - One link to RPMs
> >
> > Instead of putting them all in one directory:
> > http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/evolution/
>
> So how about moving these files into the following sub-directories:
>
> x86 .tar.gz => /syncevolution/evolution/i386-tar-gz
> amd64 .tar.gz => /syncevolution/evolution/amd64-tar-gz
> x86 .rpm => /syncevolution/evolution/i386-rpm
> amd64 .rpm => /syncevolution/evolution/amd64-rpm
Sounds good to me. Can you do that?
Are there any binaries that can run without evolution installed? It's
fine with me if not, but I want to mention how people might use the
alternatives.
It seems possible when building from source.
--
murrayc(a)murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com
2:46 a.m.
On Do, 2011-07-28 at 09:25 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 09:21 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 15:10 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Di, 2011-07-26 at 10:06 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 09:13 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > > > On Mo, 2011-07-25 at 12:54 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 12:43 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > > > > > > However, that page needs more specific links rather
than just mentioning
> > > > > > > the general Downloads page, which isn't even just
specific to
> > > > > > > installation files.
> > > > >
> > > > > I doubt that I have access to move those files around.
> > > >
> > > > I thought the directory structure could be left unchanged, with only
> > > > linking to it more clearly. What do you want me to change in
> > > > downloads.syncevolution.org?
> > >
> > > I mean, that I'd like to have
> > > - One link to .tar.gz binaries
> > > - (And maybe one link to amd64 .tar.gz binaries)
> > > - One link to RPMs
> > >
> > > Instead of putting them all in one directory:
> > > http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/evolution/
> >
> > So how about moving these files into the following sub-directories:
> >
> > x86 .tar.gz => /syncevolution/evolution/i386-tar-gz
> > amd64 .tar.gz => /syncevolution/evolution/amd64-tar-gz
> > x86 .rpm => /syncevolution/evolution/i386-rpm
> > amd64 .rpm => /syncevolution/evolution/amd64-rpm
>
> Sounds good to me. Can you do that?
Yes...
Are there any binaries that can run without evolution installed?
It's
fine with me if not, but I want to mention how people might use the
alternatives.
It seems possible when building from source.
No, only binaries for Evolution are pre-compiled at the moment. The
"-evolution" part of the name was added for the case that other versions
might be made available at some point.
I'm no longer sure whether that is really necessary. If some backend in
one large archive depends on some libs which are not available, it
simply won't load. The reduction of effort for preparing these downloads
(and perhaps for users when choosing one) IMHO outweighs the increased
download size.
This will be relevant once we start pre-compiling KDE/Akonadi support. I
started looking into that, but then ran out of time.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
3:16 a.m.
Thanks. And are those .rpm files meant for use with Fedora, Red Hat, or
SuSe, or all of them?
--
murrayc(a)murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com
3:31 a.m.
On Do, 2011-07-28 at 12:16 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
Thanks. And are those .rpm files meant for use with Fedora, Red Hat,
or
SuSe, or all of them?
All. I try to avoid depending on system specific aspects as much as
possible. Same with the .debs - they should work on Debian and
derivatives.
The downside is that the packaging certainly doesn't live up to distro
standards.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
3:52 a.m.
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 12:31 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
On Do, 2011-07-28 at 12:16 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> Thanks. And are those .rpm files meant for use with Fedora, Red Hat, or
> SuSe, or all of them?
All. I try to avoid depending on system specific aspects as much as
possible. Same with the .debs - they should work on Debian and
derivatives.
The downside is that the packaging certainly doesn't live up to distro
standards.
Thanks. I have restructured this page a little to make that all clearer:
http://syncevolution.org/documentation/installation
But is there any reason that we shouldn't recommend the distro's own
packages (and link to their status pages) unless the user wants the very
latest version?
--
murrayc(a)murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com
5:38 a.m.
On Do, 2011-07-28 at 12:52 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 12:31 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Do, 2011-07-28 at 12:16 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > Thanks. And are those .rpm files meant for use with Fedora, Red Hat, or
> > SuSe, or all of them?
>
> All. I try to avoid depending on system specific aspects as much as
> possible. Same with the .debs - they should work on Debian and
> derivatives.
>
> The downside is that the packaging certainly doesn't live up to distro
> standards.
Thanks. I have restructured this page a little to make that all clearer:
http://syncevolution.org/documentation/installation
But is there any reason that we shouldn't recommend the distro's own
packages (and link to their status pages) unless the user wants the very
latest version?
You are right, the distro's own packages are certainly recommended, if
recent enough. But often they aren't as new as the latest upstream
release.
I've moved the files inside /syncevolution/evolution/ as discussed
earlier.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
5:18 a.m.
Patrick, are there other general changes that you would like to see
happen to the website?
Otherwise, I will
- Check that the secondary menus contain still-relevant links and that
they are ordered appropriately.
- Check the page content, cleaning up the text where it's useful.
--
murrayc(a)murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com
6:11 a.m.
On Mi, 2011-07-27 at 14:18 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
Patrick, are there other general changes that you would like to see
happen to the website?
No. You are much better at picking tasks than I am at assigning them ;-)
Otherwise, I will
- Check that the secondary menus contain still-relevant links and that
they are ordered appropriately.
- Check the page content, cleaning up the text where it's useful.
Sounds good.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
1:06 a.m.
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 15:11 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> Otherwise, I will
> - Check that the secondary menus contain still-relevant links and that
> they are ordered appropriately.
> - Check the page content, cleaning up the text where it's useful.
Actually, it's not obvious how those right-hand-side secondary menus
should be changed.
This one just seems to take any pages that have "Documentation" as their
parent so I can add pages to it:
http://syncevolution.org/development
though it has an extra Wiki menu that I don't know how to edit.
But this one links to other types of pages, such as blog entries, and
has an extra unnecessary "Documentation" link at the top:
http://syncevolution.org/documentation
--
murrayc(a)murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com
3988
days inactive
3995
days old
syncevolution@synevolution.org
21 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Murray Cumming -
Patrick Ohly