On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 07:18:39PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
This suggests that it should have a manpage. But, it's a *should*. On the other hand, I know that many "entities" which are not in $PATH have their own manpage -- see for example Perl modules.How should I behave here?
I think the obvious answer makes your question moot: combine the two into one binary and benchmark to decide what to do, as suggested in 251259. If you're not willing to do that, then the prudent decision is to decide whether the user ever needs to run the program manually. In the case of cpp-4.3, you never need to run cc1 (since it is an implementation detail), so it does not require a manpage. It seems that in the case of john, the main executable cannot figure out which implementation is better, so the user may need to run the program manually. Thus it needs a manpage. IANADD. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only troff on top of XML: http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc/code/thwack OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
