On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 01:23:53PM -0700, Seth R Arnold wrote:
> There have been several times when I see a file laying around in my
> filesystem, and I don't know what it is for. A man on that filename produces
> nothing, which is a bit annoying; then I do not know what uses that file,
> etc.
Co
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:18:40PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> There's no need to force the existence of a man page.
How do these arguments hold for config files but not for executables?
Or are you advocating removing the requirement of manpages for those, too?
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
Le Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 01:23:53PM -0700, Seth R Arnold écrivait:
> How would you feel about a symlink to the manpage of the program that uses
> the conf file, if no manpage specific to that conf file is supplied?
> Symlinks should be easy to do for maintainers..
That is acceptable.
Cheers,
--
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:10:42AM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier écrivait:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Version: 3.0.1.1
> >
> > Most configuration files have manpages, but not all. It would be useful
> > if every config file (in
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:18:40PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:10:42AM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier écrivait:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Version: 3.0.1.1
> >
> > Most configuration files have manpages, but not all. It would be useful
> > if e
> > > Having a manpage is a nicer and cleaner solution IMO. There's a whole
> > man
> > >section (5) for that.
> > >
> > > A sysadmin could delete the comments; he could choose to not upgrade the
> > >file (when asked by dpkg) and have incorrect docs.. but the manpage will
> > be
> >
Le Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:10:42AM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier écrivait:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
> Version: 3.0.1.1
>
> Most configuration files have manpages, but not all. It would be useful
> if every config file (intended to be edited) would be forced to be
> documented in
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 11:36:06AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Nicol s Lichtmaier wrote:
> > Having a manpage is a nicer and cleaner solution IMO. There's a whole man
> >section (5) for that.
> >
> > A sysadmin could delete the comments; he could choose to not upgrade the
> >file (when
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:10:42AM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> Most configuration files have manpages, but not all. It would be useful
> if every config file (intended to be edited) would be forced to be
> documented in a manpage.
What is the actual change of wording you propose for policy
Nicol s Lichtmaier wrote:
> Having a manpage is a nicer and cleaner solution IMO. There's a whole man
>section (5) for that.
>
> A sysadmin could delete the comments; he could choose to not upgrade the
>file (when asked by dpkg) and have incorrect docs.. but the manpage will be
>there.
> > Most configuration files have manpages, but not all. It would be useful
> >if every config file (intended to be edited) would be forced to be
> >documented in a manpage.
>
> Would it not be sufficient to require documentation either in a manpage
> or (as is often done) by comments in the
Nicol s Lichtmaier wrote:
>Package: debian-policy
>Severity: wishlist
>Version: 3.0.1.1
>
> Most configuration files have manpages, but not all. It would be useful
>if every config file (intended to be edited) would be forced to be
>documented in a manpage.
Would it not be sufficient
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Version: 3.0.1.1
Most configuration files have manpages, but not all. It would be useful
if every config file (intended to be edited) would be forced to be
documented in a manpage.
13 matches
Mail list logo
