hey santiago, On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 11:20:02AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Sean Finney wrote: > > the manpage references example rc files which are "part of the source > > distribution", and gives a reference to a directory location that > > doesn't make sense on a debian system with procmail installed. > > Hmm, you seem to say "makes sense" or "does not make sense" as if Debian > didn't distribute *both* a source package and a binary package.
okay, if you want to pick at my wording perhaps it's not the best ;p
my thought was that for most debian users reading procmailex(5),
refering to documentation inside of a source package is less helpful
than refering to documentation installed with the binary package,
given that it's the same documentation and the user is more likely
to have that documentation installed (since they're reading the
manpage provided by the same package) than the unpacked source
package.
> The intelligent reader will realize that those files are in the binary
> package as well. What's the problem?
of course this is a horribly minor issue, but i would posit that
it is "more correct" to refer to it in the binary package's location,
and thought i would fire of a report as a result. feel free to disagree
and/or do whatever you want on the matter, i don't think it's worth the
time to debate really.
sean
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
