[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Mays) writes:
> > Policy says that any binary must come with a manpage. I would like to
> > have the same for packages.
>
> For every package? You must be kidding!!
>
> > I just looked for a parser generator that outputs C++ code and found
> > pccts. After installation I tried "man pccts", but that failed.
> > /usr/doc/pccts doesn't contain examples, so how do I use the thing?
>
> > pccts in fact contains several binaries, but non is called pccts. The
> > main binary is called antlr and has a good manpage.
>
> > My suggestion is now, that "man pccts" should either point to the
> > main binaries manpage or show a page that gives a one-line description
> > of the binaries of the package or one that has just relevant "see
> > also: xxx" entries.
>
> > What do you think?
>
> While I agree that it is probably a good idea for large packages, with
> many binaries, to provide such a man page (in section 7, of course), it
> makes no sense for packages in general. Personally, I think that such
> policy would be a waste of our developers' time to write these pages and
> a waste of disk space to store them.
In the case of most packages the main binary will be named just like
the package, like bash, zsh, gcc,... Of cause I don´t want another
manpage for the gcc package, the one for gcc is enough.
It should be rare that a package doesn´t contain a binary thats called
after the package and only for those a seperate manpage or a link to
the main programs manpage should be provided.
May the Source be with you.
Goswin
