On Jul 16 12:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 15 Jul, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > Incidentally is it appropriate to include Cygwin-port-specific > > > information in a man page? > > > > Well, from a user perspective it might be cool, but IMHO the original > > man page shouldn't be changed, unless it's a change which should be > > send upstream anyway. We have the Cygwin specific documentation in > > /usr/share/doc/Cygwin (resp. /usr/doc/Cygwin in earlier releases) for > > a long time now. It should be not too hard to ask users to look there > > for Cygwin specific docs. > > > > > > Corinna > > Can you think of a way of incorporating the material in the man page > that would be palatable upstream? How do you think people would feel > about a section "PORTABILITY" or "NOTES" or even "WINDOWS" or "CYGWIN"?
I have no idea. That's something you would have to ask the upstream maintainer. But the first question is if the Cygwin maintainer likes the idea. > The above question is relevant to a patch for the ssmtp man page. If > ssmtp uses ssmtp-config on most platforms it works on, then I can just > write a patch that includes both fixes. ssmtp-config is a Cygwin specific script. > This is a usability issue. It's hard enough to teach people to type: > > man <command-name> > > teaching them to type: > > more /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/ssmtp-0.x.y/README.ssmtp-0.x.y Don't make it overly complicated. `less /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/ssmtp*' is enough. And telling people that /usr/share/doc/Cygwin contains Cygwin specific README files isn't that hard, really. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Co-Project Leader mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
