On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 03:11:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Would it be too radical to suggest that the maintainer who
> does not have the resources to write the man page at least
> file a bug report to remind himself (and perhaps signal volunteer man
> page writers) that the man
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 03:32:35PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Can you provide any positive arguments in *favor* of undocumented(7)?
> One thing undocumented(7) does is suggest some other ways to find
> documentation.
So could a two-line man page:
N
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And I get mad if I do man binary and I get nothing, after a
> long time searching. I prefer that I see a page that tells me that
> the developer is aware of this bug.
I think "long time searching" is a bit hyperbolic. Anway, I find both
e
Hi,
>>"Marc" == Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marc> On 23 Jun 1999 01:57:45 -0500, you wrote:
>> The bug reports are not the important part. Lack of a man page
>> is grounds for a bug report, the man page is to prevent gazillions of
>> identical reports.
Marc> In that case, the link
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> And I get mad if I do man binary and I get nothing, after a
> long time searching.
I don't see no real the difference between "No manual entry for foo"
and the contents of undocumented(7). Both tell me that there is no man
page, but the for
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Christoph> Bug information belongs in the bug tracking system. If
> Christoph> someone can manually set up a link then it would not be
> Christoph> much of an additional effort to put up a manpage with
> Christoph> some useful information.
>
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 03:32:35PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Can you provide any positive arguments in *favor* of undocumented(7)?
> We've been unable to find anyone who can justify it or explain why it
> was adopted as policy in the first place. But, of course, it *was*
> adopted as policy at
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 12:17:59PM +, Marc Haber wrote:
> In that case, the link to undocumented(7) should only be allowed if
> there actually is a bug in existance.
That is the current situation.
"This manpage claims that the lack of a manpage has been reported as
a bug, so you may only do t
On 23 Jun 1999 01:57:45 -0500, you wrote:
>The bug reports are not the important part. Lack of a man page
> is grounds for a bug report, the man page is to prevent gazillions of
> identical reports.
In that case, the link to undocumented(7) should only be allowed if
there actually is a bug
Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> No, the objection is to the continued use of undocumented(7). The
Chris> goal is to get rid of this,
Umm, really?
Chris> so that we no longer confuse people by making it seem like
Chris> there's a man page when there i
Hi,
>>"Roland" == Roland Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Roland> My intension was to get rid of these undocumented.7 symlinks, because
Roland> they are quite useless because of the following points:
Roland> a) dpkg -L shows that there is a man page, but there is only
Roland>this u
Hi,
>>"Christoph" == Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christoph> Bug information belongs in the bug tracking system. If
Christoph> someone can manually set up a link then it would not be
Christoph> much of an additional effort to put up a manpage with some
Christoph> useful inform
Hi,
>>"Nicolás" == Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Nicolás> Er... should I remove it from the manpages package? Should I wait? =)
Removing it from the manpages package before policy changes would be
at least an important bug.
manoj
--
Bacon's not the only thi
On Jun 23, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> > Can you provide any positive arguments in *favor* of undocumented(7)?
> > We've been unable to find anyone who can justify it or explain why it
> > was adopted as policy in the first place. But, of course, it *was*
> > adopted as policy at some point, so su
> Can you provide any positive arguments in *favor* of undocumented(7)?
> We've been unable to find anyone who can justify it or explain why it
> was adopted as policy in the first place. But, of course, it *was*
> adopted as policy at some point, so surely someone must have had a
> reason, and ma
Bug information belongs in the bug tracking system. If someone can
manually set up a link then it would not be much of an additional effort
to put up a manpage with some useful information.
On 22 Jun 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> -
16 matches
Mail list logo
