I think I like it but I've moved the thread to the list in case others
have a say.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Amber Jain <i.ambe...@gmail.com
> These are my thoughts about how we should arrange/organize packaging related
> documentation on OpenCog wiki.
> Though with version control feature of wikis, we don't need to worry about
> messing up with wiki if I make these changes (as we can always undo them to
> previous revision). But I thought of asking before making these changes.
> After careful thought, I recognized three categories of people who will get
> involved with packaging, installing and using OpenCog:
> 1. Developers: People who contribute code to
and other opencog related repos.
> 2. Packagers: People who contribute code to
, do buildbot builds, deb builds etc.
> 3. Users: People who just want to install and run OpenCog. These users want
> to explore OpenCog and maybe if they get interested, they will eventually
> become #1 (Developers) and #2 (Packagers) as listed above. Even though
> there's probably not-a-lot in OpenCog for people to try out as "users" but
> there will be "Stuff" to play with in future and so we should organize the
> documentation accordingly.
> Now, some people (e.g. you) will play all 3 roles listed above. But most
> people will fall in 1 (or maybe 2) of listed categories.
> So, I think that the documentation on wiki should be arranged accordingly.
> Let me explain this using the example of "DEBS":
> 1. Developers will need (daily built) binary executables as well as access
> to source code. So, the Developer documentation will contain (links to) how
> to check out the source, how to setup IDE (maybe emacs?), how to get daily
> built DEB/DMG/EXE etc.
> 2. Packagers will need (links to) documentation about how to package
> DEB/DMG/EXE (like ocpkg)
> 3. Users will need (links to) sources where they can get DEB/DMG/EXE. If
> they want DEB for example, we can point them to OpenCog PPA, dailydeb PPA.
> So, I think every piece of documentation related to building/installing
> OpenCog should be categorized based on 3 categories listed above. We don't
> necessarily need separate pages for each of these 3 categories. For e.g.
> we'll have a page for every package type (e.g. --debs, --ppa, --local etc.)
> and in each of these page, we'll have 3 sections (i.e. one each for
> developers, users and packagers).
> What do you say?
> PS: Starting now, I'll put maximum efforts to synchronize code in ocpkg and
> documentation of wiki. For every major-ish change in ocpkg, I'll document it
> on corresponding wiki page (if needed). This way documentation will
> accurately reflect and explain the ocpkg code/features.
> Amber Jain