Question about our repo structure

@darknao In one or our recent discussions you said you would prefer not to have a set of small repos / one repo per topic / document, but a limited number and to combine thematically related documents in one repo.

Wouldn’t it be appropriate then to create a “Fedora admin tools” (or something better worded) repo and consolidate the current Anaconda, dnf, etc as docs into that repo? Given that we want to refer more to upstream documentation, our own Fedora specific docs will be smaller, I suppose.

3 Likes

Yes, I like that idea.
I don’t have a better name in mind, except for “Fedora Linux admin tools” or “Fedora Linux sysadmin tools”.

2 Likes

Well, I guess “Fedora Linux admin tools” is the formally correct name.

Could you create the repo and a basic config with e.g. the home site (that is the content of the page, the tools box is linking to and which is currently part of the box repo) and the anaconda guide as an example? I still don’t know what is the best configuration and what are the consequences of the variants. Some configure the different documentation as part ob the base repo directory, some beyond the modules subdir and I saw a third variant, I currently don’t remember. I would transfer all the content and let you know when the repos can be deleted.

Ok, just to make sure I understand it right: You want a new Fedora Linux Admin Tools repository, with the content of the current Fedora Tools page as the main page (index.adoc) and the Anaconda Guide (which one?).
Is that correct?

Sorry for the late reply. Yes, that’s correct, and with my 1st cut of a new anaconda guide. And afterwards we will add additional guides, e.g. about journalctl, rpm, dnf, etc. So we have something like

/home/ROOT/nav.adoc
/home/ROOT/pages/index.adoc

/anaconda/ROOT/nav.adoc
/anaconda/ROOT/pages/index.adoc
/anaconda/ROOT/pages/localinstall/index.adoc
/anaconda(/ROOT/pages/localinstall/how-it-works.adoc

/dnf/ROOT/nav.adoc
/dbf/ROOT/pages/index.adoc

or

/modules/ROOT/nav.adoc
/modules/ROOT/pages/index.adoc
/modules/anaconda/nav.adoc
/modules/anaconda/pages/index.adoc
/modules/anaconda/pages/localinstall/index.adoc
/modules/anaconda/pages/localinstall/how-it-works.adoc
/modules/dnf/nav.adoc
/modules/dnf/pages/index.adoc

Basically similar to the previous Team Page, where the Contributing part resided in its own part of the directory structure. This would make the individual guides independent of each other. That’s the key, to get guides that are completely independent of each other (or as far as possible) but technically share one repo.

Ok I think I understand now.
It’s all a matter of how the resulting URL will look like.
If we want /en-US/fedora-tools/anaconda then anaconda must be a module of fedora-tools:
/modules/anaconda/pages/index.adoc
But if you want a completely independent guide /en-US/anaconda then we’ll need a separate directory structure in the same repository:
/anaconda/modules/ROOT/pages/index.adoc
/dnf/modules/ROOT/pages/index.adoc

I understand that you want the latter.
Can you provide a link to the Anaconda guide you’re mentioning?

Well, I don’t want to decide that alone.

The latter may give us most freedom to rearrange everything if we want to sometime in the future.

The former would emphasize that it is intended to be the successor to the previous System Administrator’s Guide in a non-monolithic form. And its texts are not full-fledged guides, but rather supplements to the upstream documentation.

Regarding the repo:
I think it was Fedora Linux Documentation → Fedora Linux Anaconda Guide

But I never started to transfer my preview into the repo. So we can delete it now. The same is true for the “Fedora Linux DNF Guide” repo.