Something else to consider -- the current TAR releases (well, the
pretests anyway) have a wonderful hack: a script that takes the usage
message and generates a man page. This might require enhancing the
usage message some, for many of those programs, but that's something
that can easily go back up
Point of information:
Chris> No commercial Unix vendor would say "Read our custom,
Chris> narrowly-supported documentation format since we can't be
IBM, AIX, "Info Explorer". Not at all related to texinfo, but an
IBM-specific hypertext sort of system. "man" on those systems is
actually a front e
Hi,
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Any configuration files created or used by your package should reside
in `/etc'. If there are several you should consider creating a
subdirectory named after your package.
It is almost certain
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> It has been brought to my attention that there are a number of
> packages that violate current policy with regards to conffiles, and I
> do not think there is a reason to do so. I shall file bugs forthwith
> unless there are compelling objections to doing so.
On Sun, Feb 22, 1998 at 08:58:26PM +0100, Christian Lynbech on satellite wrote:
> I suggest we make the policy state that manpages must exist, but also
> that such manpages are allowed to consist only of a reference to the
> info system (probably under the condition that this points as
> accuratel
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj> I would hate to be the maintainer of the packages fileutils,
Manoj> shellutils, and textutils (Galen Hazelwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>),
Manoj> who has a whopping 61 man pages to write.
I agree with Manoj.
Isn't writing and *mainta
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
First let me say that I have no problem with updated man-pages.
> Last I checked, it also had incomprehensible key-bindings (which
> permanently discouraged me from using it) and took up space on my
> hard drive that could be better used. I have used in
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> And this rises the question if X *has* to reside under
Marcus> /usr/X11R6... (/usr/X11R6 ha bin, include,lib and man. Nothing
Marcus> that couldn't be put elsewhere, one would think. Please don't
Marcus> flame me if I am comple
Hi,
>>"Oliver" == Oliver Elphick writes:
Oliver> The first candidate for writing manpages should be the
Oliver> maintainer. Perhaps Christian could produce a list of the
Oliver> packages that need updated manpages so that the maintainer can
Oliver> say whether or not he can do them for 2.0 and so
On Sat, Feb 21, 1998 at 06:00:19PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Vincent" == Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Vincent> I remember this discussion. The main difference is that KDE
> Vincent> is not a standard (not yet at least ;) while OPENSTEP has
> Vincent> been norma
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> In that case, we should start writing man pages, and not just
> file bug reports and leave the task to a few maintainers that are
> stuck with packages with mostly info documentation.
I agree that other people than the maintainers should be willing to write
man
Hamish writes:
> Not being an emacs user myself, I find info hard to use.
Being an emacs user myself, I also find (standalone) info hard to use.
I use emacs info, but I still like man pages.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do
Hi,
I think we can agree on the fact that shipping man pages with
out dated information is wrong, and that man pages are not always the
ideal documentation format (longer documents _are_ better as info),
but that ``standard unix'' commands should have basic docuentation in
man page for
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sat, Feb 21, 1998 at 10:37:15PM -0600:
> Who needs to pull up emacs to read info pages? there is a
> stand alone info, which is faster than lynx, and has way
> better search capabilities than either lynx or "less".
Info is better suited for certain i
On Feb 21, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Chris" == Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Chris> On Feb 21, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> >> IMO, this is a policy violation. Especially, in the case of
> >> sort(1), where the info page is much more up-to-date than the
> >> manpage.
>
> C
Hi,
>>"Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hamish> On Sat, Feb 21, 1998 at 10:37:15PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava
Hamish> wrote:
>> Who needs to pull up emacs to read info pages? there is a stand
>> alone info, which is faster than lynx, and has way better search
>> capabilities than
On Sat, Feb 21, 1998 at 10:37:15PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Who needs to pull up emacs to read info pages? there is a
> stand alone info, which is faster than lynx, and has way
> better search capabilities than either lynx or "less".
>
> I understand people who say outdated m
Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> On Feb 21, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>> IMO, this is a policy violation. Especially, in the case of
>> sort(1), where the info page is much more up-to-date than the
>> manpage.
Chris> I'm with you on this... a man page is a lot mor
Hi,
Well, I can't argue with "Either we ship manual pages (then
they have to be up-to-date) or we don't ship manual pages."
However, is this not rather late in the development cycle of
hamm to bring this up? Should we concentrate on getting hamm out
before generating potentiall
On Feb 21, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> IMO, this is a policy violation. Especially, in the case of sort(1), where
> the info page is much more up-to-date than the manpage.
I'm with you on this... a man page is a lot more useful for general usage
than an Info page (I use man all of the time, while
Hi folks!
As everyone knows (at least, should know :) our current policy requires
every program/utility to have a manual page (see policy manual, section
5.1). However, since the FSF prefers `TeXinfo', most GNU utilities have
info manuals. The lack of a manual page is usually reported as bugs (an
Hi,
>>"Vincent" == Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Vincent> I remember this discussion. The main difference is that KDE
Vincent> is not a standard (not yet at least ;) while OPENSTEP has
Vincent> been normalized in 1994. GNUstep inteding to be OPENSTEP
Vincent> compliant I guess we a
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote:
[snip]
> I think the best ultimate solution is to eventually put X games in
> /usr/X11R6/games. I haven't studied FHS too closely though.
Umm--no, that's not the best solution at all! An IMO much better solution
would be to drop /usr/games completely.
On 21 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think if a binary is in /usr/X11R6/bin, the man pages go
> into /usr/X11R6/man. If it is in /usr/games, the man pages go in
> /usr/man. The algorithm, which is the same one as the one used to
> generate the man path, is
>
>base
A. P. Harris writes:
> I think the best ultimate solution is to eventually put X games in
> /usr/X11R6/games.
What reason is there for anything not part of the X distribution to go in
/usr/X11R6?
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just a side note -- *whatever* ends up being done, please please
please add a binding to debian-changelog.el (whenever it gets returned
to dpkg-dev, where it was lost months ago, grumble) that, say, prompts
for a number and inserts the correct tokens.
For extra credit, a hook that looks at bug-clo
26 matches
Mail list logo
