Your message dated Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:53:51 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Re: Bug#483834: debian-policy: contradiction how to name man
pages in perl-policy
has caused the Debian Bug report #483834,
regarding debian-policy: contradiction how to name man pages in perl-policy
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
immediately.)
--
483834: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=483834
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.3.0
Severity: normal
Hi,
there is a contradiction how to name man pages for perl modules.
Section 4.1 states
Module packages must install manual pages into the standard
directories (see Documentation, Section 2.4) using the extensions
.1p and .3pm to ensure that no conflict arises where a packaged
module duplicates a core module.
while section 2.4 states
Manual pages distributed with Perl packages must be installed into
the standard directories:
Programs
Manual pages for programs and scripts are installed into
/usr/share/man/man1 with the extension .1.
Modules
Manual pages for modules are installed into /usr/share/man/man3
with the extension .3perl.
A quick survey for the packages installed on my system shows that .3pm
and .1 seem to be more popular:
*.3perl - 495
*.3pm - 1697
*.1p - 33
perl programs - 270
Regards,
Ansgar
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
"Brendan O'Dea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Assuming that we are, I think there isn't a bug here, although if other
>> people find this section confusing, maybe we should find a way to
>> rephrase to make it clearer which packages are being talked about in
>> each section.
> I believe that the wording is sufficiently clear.
Okay, I think we've all decided what Policy says is correct. If anyone
wants to propose a different way of wording it, it's probably better to
file a new bug with a specific wording proposal so that we can hash out if
it's clearer. In the meantime, I'm going to go ahead and close this one.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--- End Message ---
