Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> *sigh* There are multiple man browsers in Debian: gman, gnome-help,
> konqueror, and tkman all provide man-browser, and coolman should.
Sure. I assumed that all/most of them used man-db as a backend. If
that's not the case, my musings are certainly silly
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> *sigh* There are multiple man browsers in Debian: gman, gnome-help,
> konqueror, and tkman all provide man-browser, and coolman should.
Sure. I assumed that all/most of them used man-db as a backend. If
that's not the case, my musings are certainly sill
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From undocumented(7):
>
> | This program, utility or function does not have a useful
> | manpage. Please do not report this as a bug, because this
> | has already been reported as a bug; when a manpage becomes
But
On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 at 20:21:09 +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > undocumented(7) is in the manpages package (Priority: important).
> > It seems sensible to allow users to remove this package without
> > breaking anything,
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From undocumented(7):
>
> | This program, utility or function does not have a useful
> | manpage. Please do not report this as a bug, because this
> | has already been reported as a bug; when a manpage becomes
On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 at 20:21:09 +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > undocumented(7) is in the manpages package (Priority: important).
> > It seems sensible to allow users to remove this package without
> > breaking anything,
[I think Colin reads this list, but CCing @packages to be sure.]
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> undocumented(7) is in the manpages package (Priority: important). It seems
> sensible to allow users to remove this package without breaking anything, and
> if they
[I think Colin reads this list, but CCing @packages to be sure.]
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> undocumented(7) is in the manpages package (Priority: important). It seems
> sensible to allow users to remove this package without breaking anything, and
> if they
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 06:23:37PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
> Actually, the reason I ask is because I *did* miss undocumented(7), without
> realising it. In fact, a bug almost got filed against an entirely unrelated
> package for not having man pages for its binaries, when in reali
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 06:23:37PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
> Actually, the reason I ask is because I *did* miss undocumented(7), without
> realising it. In fact, a bug almost got filed against an entirely unrelated
> package for not having man pages for its binaries, when in reali
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 06:23:37PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
> Actually, the reason I ask is because I *did* miss undocumented(7), without
> realising it. In fact, a bug almost got filed against an entirely unrelated
> package for not having man pages for its binaries, when in reali
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 06:23:37PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
> Actually, the reason I ask is because I *did* miss undocumented(7), without
> realising it. In fact, a bug almost got filed against an entirely unrelated
> package for not having man pages for its binaries, when in reali
[ CC:'ed to Nicolás Lichtmaier as maintainer of manpages ]
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> undocumented(7) is in the manpages package (Priority: important). It seems
> sensible to allow users to remove this package without breaking anything, and
> if they ca
[ CC:'ed to Nicolás Lichtmaier as maintainer of manpages ]
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> undocumented(7) is in the manpages package (Priority: important). It seems
> sensible to allow users to remove this package without breaking anything, and
> if the
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>undocumented(7) is in the manpages package (Priority: important). It seems
>sensible to allow users to remove this package without breaking anything, and
>if they care enough to remove the manpages package, they probably won't miss
&g
Sam Couter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Simple question for the day:
>
>Should a package that has a symlink to undocumented(7) also have a Depends:
>on the package that contains undocumented(7) (manpages)? It seems silly to
>me that a package could have a symlink to a non-exist
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>undocumented(7) is in the manpages package (Priority: important). It seems
>sensible to allow users to remove this package without breaking anything, and
>if they care enough to remove the manpages package, they probably won't
Sam Couter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Simple question for the day:
>
>Should a package that has a symlink to undocumented(7) also have a Depends:
>on the package that contains undocumented(7) (manpages)? It seems silly to
>me that a package could have a symlink to a non
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 06:23:21PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
> Simple question for the day:
>
> Should a package that has a symlink to undocumented(7) also have a Depends:
> on the package that contains undocumented(7) (manpages)? It seems silly to
> me that a package could have
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 06:23:21PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
> Simple question for the day:
>
> Should a package that has a symlink to undocumented(7) also have a Depends:
> on the package that contains undocumented(7) (manpages)? It seems silly to
> me that a package could have
Simple question for the day:
Should a package that has a symlink to undocumented(7) also have a Depends:
on the package that contains undocumented(7) (manpages)? It seems silly to
me that a package could have a symlink to a non-existant man page in place
of its own non-existant man page.
--
Sam
Simple question for the day:
Should a package that has a symlink to undocumented(7) also have a Depends:
on the package that contains undocumented(7) (manpages)? It seems silly to
me that a package could have a symlink to a non-existant man page in place
of its own non-existant man page.
--
Sam
22 matches
Mail list logo
