My only concerns about having a man page is that eventually the
configuration file (in this case rc.conf) might gradually become less well
commented, or it's comments become outdated. And that man pages tend to
be long on highly technical explanations that I for one have a hard time
understanding
It would appear that on Aug 26, Dave Reisner did say:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 01:35:33PM -0400, Joe(theWordy)Philbrook wrote:
As a mere arch user who happens to think that the concept of well
commented configuration files such as Arch's rc.conf are WONDERFUL.
Especially when they include
@Dave
I readed your man page draft and it's quite useful - to me, a simple
end-user.
About your concerns with comments in rc.* files being outdated, a short
advice can be put
at the beginning of each file warning users to take comments in the file as
a very general
reference, guiding them to the
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Dave Reisner d...@falconindy.com wrote:
I threw together a man page for rc.conf based on info gleaned from the
Wiki, rc.conf itself, and my own experiences. I offer it up for for
adoption into the initscripts package along with comments, critcisms,
and rotten
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 05:37:29PM -0400, David Campbell wrote:
Excerpts from Dave Reisner's message of 2010-08-23 14:59:11 -0400:
*ROUTES (array)*::
A list of routes to be created. For each item in this list, the
'network'
service expects to find a variable of the same
I threw together a man page for rc.conf based on info gleaned from the
Wiki, rc.conf itself, and my own experiences. I offer it up for for
adoption into the initscripts package along with comments, critcisms,
and rotten tomatoes. The format is asciidoc, which is the same format
used by pacman.
If
Excerpts from Dave Reisner's message of 2010-08-23 14:59:11 -0400:
*ROUTES (array)*::
A list of routes to be created. For each item in this list, the
'network'
service expects to find a variable of the same name to exist
providing a
string of parameters to be passed
7 matches
Mail list logo
