>
> I think we should think in nice and easy to find documentation. Im just
> reading this thread and saw http://www.qmail-ldap.org/wiki/Man.
> Is it necessary to have man pages numbered? Why not a single man-wiki for each
> command?
What you mean with numbered? You mean the name qmail-smtp(8) or the URL wiki/Man/Man8/qmail-smtpd?
> I think we should think in nice and easy to find documentation. Im just
> reading this thread and saw http://www.qmail-ldap.org/wiki/Man.
> Is it necessary to have man pages numbered? Why not a single man-wiki for each
> command?
What you mean with numbered? You mean the name qmail-smtp(8) or the URL wiki/Man/Man8/qmail-smtpd?
The first is because it's the section where the
manpage belongs to. The second, the "Man8" part, is not necessary by now
actually, but it makes no harm neither. It's there just to be analog with stock
qmail.
> I'm lost in what is the point here,
what-way-to-do-it vs what?
Claudio thinks doing manpages in wiki format is
silly. I'm showing him that what is silly is to convert them to mdoc after they
already exist.
Also we are debating is how to do manpages for the ~control/files. In stock qmail, the control file is documented in the manpage of the program that uses this control file. Because in qmail we can *pratically* assume that 1 control file is read by 1 program, which does not happen in qmail-ldap.
I proposed to group them as shown in the table
| Used by | Manpage |
| 1 program exclusively* | program(N) |
| qmail-send, qmail-smtpd | qmail-control-basic(5) |
| auth_imap, auth_pop, auth_smtp | qmail-control-auth(5) |
| auth_imap, auth_pop, qmail-lspawn | qmail-control-deliver-retrieve(5) |
| auth_imap, auth_pop, auth_smtp, qmail-lspawn, qmail-verify | qmail-control-ldap-access(5) |
Claudio thinks is better to create one manpage for
each control file. By grouping the way I'm suggesting the reader will understand
what is the main purpose of those files, for example, in
qmail-control-ldap-access(5) are the control files that configure the access to
the ldap directory, as so, they are used by every program that access the
directory.
see http://www.qmail-ldap.org/wiki/Man/Man5/qmail-control-ldap-access,
it's ready.
In qmail-control-deliver-retrieve(5), as the name
says, are the control files involved with delivering and retrieving the
messages.
I like this way, but I could change that for a
simpler alternative, like this bellow:
| Used by | Manpage |
| 1 program exclusively | program(N) |
| filename is used by more than 1 program | qmail-control-filename(5) |
Is not that bad. I prefer the fist, but this one works too.
Any idea?
Thanks for the interest,
bnegrao.
