On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 03:23:00PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > As I remember it from Ol Times (at the time I was one of the mandators that > > debian should include manual *sources* instead of catmans :) the purpose of > > undocumented(7) was to signal that a package had no documentation *at all*. > > undocumented.7 has for years pointed people to /usr/doc, and other sources > of documentation, so that doesn't seem right.
undocumented.7 points people to /usr/doc/foo and /usr/lib/foo -- but not /usr/share/doc/foo -- nor does it mention that foo might be in a package not named `foo' -- would it be wise to update undocumented.7 before potato ships, so that it not only includes a suggestion to /usr/share/doc/foo, but mentions a quick way using dpkg to find out what package foo *is* a part of? I suppose those, the "see also" section lists a few other programs that could come in handy. In any event, it should probably point to /usr/share/doc/foo as well. I am thinking of filing a bug report again manpages -- unless someone has a better idea. :) -- Seth Arnold | http://www.willamette.edu/~sarnold/ Hate spam? See http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ for help Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
