On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 at 11:28:02 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> so we do have to provide all these man pages and manage them with
> alternatives among all the shells?
>
> sounds like a mess to maintain.
I agree with Herbert that the current situation is very confusing: as it
stands, you can be running ash, type 'man for', and get the man page for
the bash builtins [1], which is at least surprising. Personally I'd have
builtins(1) just say 'builtins \- bash built-in commands, see bash(1)'
in the NAME section, and list the commands in the SYNOPSIS instead. NAME
has a more well-defined meaning.
[1] Well, actually, at the moment you get bash(1) because the fact that
builtins(1) doesn't mention 'builtins' in its NAME section, and
instead mentions 'bash' which it does not document, tickles a bug in
man. I'll fix it when I work out how to do so without breaking other
recent fixes.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
