Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was referring to the sentence underlined
> by Roland, which means that you can't make a symlink to
> undocumented(7) unless there is a bug report.
The reason for that is that the undocumented(7) page says that a bug
report has been filed. OTOH, if you don't file a bug before
installing the undocumented symlink, well, guess what, that's a bug,
and what do we do about bugs? File a bug report.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other, IMO. :-)
I'm not opposed to changing policy here, as long as we also change the
text in undocumented(7) to say something like:
.B not
! report this as a bug, because this has already been reported (or is
! being reported) as a bug;
when a manpage becomes available it will be included, and the bug
--- 35,37 ----
.B not
! report this as a bug, because this has already been reported as a bug;
when a manpage becomes available it will be included, and the bug
Then we could change policy to say that if you use undocumented(7),
you must file a bug either before uploading the package, or
immediately upon receiving notice that the package has been installed.
It does seem a bit odd to have to upload two nearly identical versions
of a package just to follow policy here. (Where the only diff is that
the second one includes the undocumented(7) symlink.) It is a bit
hard on people who end up downloading the package twice for no gain in
functionality.
Should I write up a proposal on this?
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
