> > Writing your own undocumented manpage is just as bad.. typing man and > > having to read something like `foobar has no manpage, type this and that and > > don't bother me.' it's the same thing. > > The manpage must provide some minimal information. That's what I'd propose. > > e.g. The manpage must provide at least the information you can get from the > > online help. > > This requirement cannot then be placed concurrently with the > requirement to have a manpage for every binary. In some larger > packages, it's pretty difficult to find out what some of those > binaries do, except that to say that if you take one of them out of > the path, something will break. They don't always have online help.
I would expect that a mantainer have a little knowledge of his package. If a binary is not meant to be called by the user, it is a bug to have it in the PATH.
