LOL... Well vnk_fd helped me out. I had 2 problems. The first was the gpg key was bad apparently. Wiping out the gpg dir in my home dir and creating a brand new key fixed that problem. The second was user stupidity. Mine that is. I didn't create the dsa public key :) I've sent back the user agreement. Now I just need approval and I should be able to edit.
Rahul, thank you on the feedback. FHS? I documented based on default Fedora installs. The exceptions were purely commonly installed tarballs. I did not go into detail such as WHERE the files might be found. Only pointed out that they might be in a different place. That's what I was talking about style however. Whether such practical usage tips were appropriate for the document. Apache in particuler is probably more frequently installed by tarball than by rpm. One of the biggest driving factors is that when a patch comes out it can be days or weeks before an RPM comes out where the tarball is the official means of release. Tarballs also offer a great deal of customization not easy or possible with the current rpm configuration. So I thought it was important to document that.
I will delve into more details about /etc/issue files. Any other areas I did not cover well or need more detail?
On 12/8/06,
Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Dan Smith wrote:
> I know I'm supposed to submit to the wiki but I am having a great deal
> of trouble with it not recognizing my key. Still not sure why. I've
> exported it. Then created a new one. Anyway I've had this sitting around
> for a couple weeks now ready and would like to get feedback on it and
> hopefully get it submitted to the Wiki by somebody with edit writes
> while I work on getting my account straitened out. Once I get reamed on
> a couple of these for mistakes in style I'll have a very good idea of
> what is and isn't wanted in documentation and can hopefully just submit
> in a normal fashion by then.
>
Instead of restating large portions of what basically amounts to a
description of the FHS, it would be much more useful to refer to FHS and
then state the exceptions and more Fedora specific directories and files
and describe them in more detail.
We insist on following FHS as part of our packaging guidelines at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-e1c5548cbbe551c7a43d375c524ab2ea0188557e
. The exception with is libexecdir has also been submitted for inclusion
in the next revision of FHS. So directories like /selinux and files like
/etc/fedora-release etc should be documented better and the rest should
left to FHS as the canonical description of the Fedora directory and
filesystem structure.
Rahul
--
fedora-docs-list mailing list
fedora-docs-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list