Hi, Greg Wooledge wrote: > The only GNU project > man page that is a complete reference document is bash(1), which is > very, very different from the other GNU man pages.
There is at least one more. :)) GNU xorriso offers three man pages which have identical content as the .info documents because they stem from the same .texi files. (.texi to man is done by help of a special converter which relies on special comments in the .texi file.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It is not easy to describe a program with many use cases and even more particular settings and actions. What lacks to my experience as confused reader and as best effort writer is the user's view on the programs. man pages should document the details and often do sufficiently. But the user looks for solutions, not opportunities. I can give some examples, not more. Users often surprise me with unexpected views on their use case or with combinations which i never had imagined on my own. But ... emetib wrote: > why isn't it 'i will take an hour to update this little piece of > documentation'. [man page or wiki] >From the view of the developer it is not that easy. It is very demanding to document a program which one does not know on source level. Every other year i get some proposal of overhauling the man pages. But the technical knowledge behind those proposals normally does not suffice for making a correct change in there. Especially when submitters tried to get my phrasing more compliant to the usual english language they submitted statements which were flatly wrong. That's why i rather hope for a separate tutorial, which relies on the man pages for technical info, has only tested statements and examples, and is open to technical corrections by me. (No wonder nobody feels motivated to do it.) Until then i can only invite users to ask for clarifications at bug-xorr...@gnu.org. Have a nice day :) Thomas
