On 2019-04-15 Bernhard Voelker <m...@bernhard-voelker.de> wrote: > On 4/15/19 7:02 PM, Дилян Палаузов wrote: > > this information is in the manual page, but not in the info files. The > > latter state e.g. for --no-run-if-empty, that > > this is a “GNU extension”.
> Actually, there's a lot redundancy between the man page and the texinfo > manual, and also quite a lot which is not in sync (as in your example). > IMO maintaining both is quite some effort, and ideally all should be > merged into the texinfo format (of which HTML and PDF versions are > generated) [1], and find.1 should be generated from and contain just a > bit more than 'find --help'. A pity that merging both formats is a > huge effort already ... [...] Hello, As a find user I would rather see the info manual dropped than the manpage. For *me* the latter is not only better accessible. man with less a pager simply is quicker than any of the info readers or a web-browser, but apart from that especially for find the man page is better readable. There is less chaff. It is leaner since it only documents find and not e.g. updatedb, too. Also I simply do not like fine-grained the node structure with deep hierarchy. It is fine in theory, but if I am looking for e.g. printf specifiers I am going to search for /printf/ instead of jumping through TOC -> 3 Actions -> 3.2 Print File Information -> 3.2.2 Format Directives -> 3.2.2.1 Name Directives. I do know that GNU standards say differently, but I respectfully disagree. cu Andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
