The people on clang architectures need to know that the gcc systems
are
different, that different decisions have been made. Education is
way
more important than consistancy.
I'm all for being educated about differences between architectures. I
think the current manual pages don't achieve it in this particular
regard. They don't, as far as I see, mention anywhere that there even
*are* gcc systems as opposed to clang systems. I've only learned about
it from this mailing list and from blog entries by Frederic Cambus.
This manual page is not hurting you.
It does cause confusion (e.g. I see no way to find out from the manual
pages on which platforms the GNU assembler is part of the system and
on which platforms it is not; removing the man pages for certain
platforms might not be the solution, but the problem is real).
Regards
Stanislav
On Fr, 03 Mär 2023 09:43:16 -0700
Theo de Raadt <dera...@openbsd.org> wrote:
And I think you are INCORRECT.
The #1 reason to make a manual page visible is for learning.
The people on clang architectures need to know that the gcc systems
are
different, that different decisions have been made. Education is
way
more important than consistancy.
"Stanislav Syekirin" wrote:
I agree. I would expect man pages for as(1), gcc(1), gcc-local(1)
etc. to be present if as and gcc are present, and absent if they are
absent. Or, alternatively, gcc-local(1) should document which
platforms use gcc and which don't.
Regards
Stanislav
On Do, 2 Mär 2023 22:47:08 +0000
Jason McIntyre <j...@kerhand.co.uk> wrote:
> i don;t think we should be installing gcc-local(1) on any archs
> where
> gcc isnt happening:
> $ uname -a
> OpenBSD manila.kerhand.co.uk 7.2 GENERIC.MP#22 amd64
> $ man gcc
> man: No entry for gcc in the manual.
> jmc
>
