Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 06:11:51PM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > --- policy.sgml.orig2002-11-12 12:50:40.0 + > > +++ policy.sgml 2002-11-12 12:51:30.0 + > > + There should be a manual page at least for every program. If > > + no manual page is available,

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

> --- policy.sgml.orig 2002-11-12 12:50:40.0 + > +++ policy.sgml 2002-11-12 12:51:30.0 + > + There should be a manual page at least for every program. If > + no manual page is available, this is considered as a bug and > + should be reported to the

Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 11:51:28AM -0900, Britton wrote: > I don't agree at all that a half-assed man page is better than > undocumented, especially if upstream has taken the trouble to provide > better documentation in some other form. Isn't that backwards? The worse the upstream documentation,

Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

I don't agree at all that a half-assed man page is better than undocumented, especially if upstream has taken the trouble to provide better documentation in some other form. A minimal man page, carefully maintained, might be worthwhile. But if Colin is willing to change man to somehow figure out

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 11:13:53AM -0500, H. S. Teoh wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:45:00PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:26:54PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > > > Perhaps "undocumented features" is not the best of phrases, > > > someone might think it's for exploits

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:45:00PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:26:54PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:57:25AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > > I completely agree that the undocumented(7) page is useful to new users. > > > That's why I suggest th

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:45:00PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > > I completely agree that the undocumented(7) page is useful to new users. > > > That's why I suggest that it should remain on the system, and that man > > > should provide a much more lightweight pointer to it when no manual page >

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:26:54PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:57:25AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > I completely agree that the undocumented(7) page is useful to new users. > > That's why I suggest that it should remain on the system, and that man > > should provide a m

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:57:25AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > I have some reservations about this. Along with potential false hopes > > during load time, the undocumented page provides pointers to places where > > documentation may be found. It may be irritating to people in the know, > > but

Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Branden> When declaring a comment period, it is customary to announce when it Branden> will end. Branden> How long do you propose to wait before declaring this proposal Branden> non-objectionable? Well, geez. I had planned o

Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:14:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > There is a proposal under consideration for changing the > undocumented(7) man page. The current proposal is included below; it > is not yet the final form; and input of the general community is > solicited. I have brought

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > $ src/man wibble > No manual entry for wibble > See 'man 7 undocumented' for help with undocumented features. That's soo much better than having `undocumented.7' pop up. I find the current behavior very frustrating, because the output _looks_,

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 08:00:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Chris> since the discussion period IS NOW UP, the text posted by > Chris> Manoj to -devel (which incorporates the minor changes) IS > Chris> INDEED THE FINAL FORM! >

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:13:24AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > I've just uploaded man-db 2.4.0-11 with the additional text in the > error message on an experimental basis; Cool! Go Colin! Yay! I still think that DDs who can't even be bothered to provide at least a *paragraph* worth of man pag

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Chris> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:14:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> There is a proposal under consideration for changing the >> undocumented(7) man page. The current proposal is included below; it >> is not yet the final form; and i

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:13:24AM +, Colin Watson wrote: [snip] > Although I am obviously in favour of having this proposal approved :-), [snip] So am I. Just for the record. T -- Your inconsistency is the only consistent thing about you! -- KD

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:22:58PM -0900, Britton wrote: > Along with potential false hopes during load time, the undocumented > page provides pointers to places where documentation may be found. An actual man page would do a better job of that. The point of this proposal is that people should p

Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

>>"Britton" == Britton Leo Kerin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Britton> I have some reservations about this. Along with potential Britton> false hopes during load time, the undocumented page provides Britton> pointers to places where documentation may be found. It may Britton> be irritating to

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:22:03PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote: > Now, if this were my proposal, I might allow a further three days > discussion, out of respect for Manoj. I think three days is more than > adequate for a three-year-old proposal. But at this point, it's > Colin's proposal, and unles

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:22:58PM -0900, Britton wrote: > I have some reservations about this. Along with potential false hopes > during load time, the undocumented page provides pointers to places where > documentation may be found. It may be irritating to people in the know, > but since man is

Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 12:38, Josip Rodin wrote: > The contents of the policy proposals is what matters, how it's formatted > is a really minor technical detail which only distracts IMHO. I think we should encourage people to submit SGML patches, because this encourages people to do things like li

Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On 13-Nov-02, 15:22 (CST), Britton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have some reservations about this. Along with potential false hopes > during load time, the undocumented page provides pointers to places where > documentation may be found. It may be irritating to people in the know, > but since

Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

I have some reservations about this. Along with potential false hopes during load time, the undocumented page provides pointers to places where documentation may be found. It may be irritating to people in the know, but since man is still the most widely known unix documentation interface, new u

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:14:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > There is a proposal under consideration for changing the > undocumented(7) man page. The current proposal is included below; it > is not yet the final form; and input of the general community is > solicited. Excuse me?

Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 09:50:12AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I would prefer not to make that a recommendation. Those > patches are accepted, of course, but I do really prefer sgml diffs. I > am not about to make it a requirement, but I'd rather not recommend > something that goes ag

Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 09:41:51AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Colin" == Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Colin> The undocumented(7) page itself can continue to exist. As discussed on > Colin> IRC, I'm happy to hack man-db so that it can (configurably) point to > Colin> further

Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 09:48:01AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> Again, I'm happy to leave it to a policy editor to fix the markup if > >> desired. > > Josip> Another reason why requiring SGML patches instead of pure content is > Josip> wrong... > > Why is it wrong? It makes thing

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:14:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > There is a proposal under consideration for changing the > undocumented(7) man page. The current proposal is included below; it > is not yet the final form; and input of the general community is > solicited. I have brought

Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

>>"Josip" == Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Again, I'm happy to leave it to a policy editor to fix the markup if >> desired. Josip> Another reason why requiring SGML patches instead of pure content is Josip> wrong... Why is it wrong? It makes things easier for policy edit

Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

>>"Andrew" == Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Andrew> I don't think SGML patches are required anywhere. I also tried Andrew> creating one once, and it's not worth the trouble, especially if your Andrew> editor is not setup to grok SGML and how to break lines correctly. Can Andrew>

Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

>>"Colin" == Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Colin> The undocumented(7) page itself can continue to exist. As discussed on Colin> IRC, I'm happy to hack man-db so that it can (configurably) point to Colin> further information in addition to the "No manual entry for foo" Colin> message

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

>>"Herbert" == Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Herbert> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I personally find the undocumented (7) man page frustrating, >> since I expected to see documentation, and was told there was none >> after a wait (yes, I had a slow machine). I w

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > + There should be a manual page at least for every program. If > + no manual page is available, this is considered as a bug and > + should be reported to the Debian Bug Tracking System (the > + maintainer of the package is all

Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:52:28PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > > > > + It is not very hard to write a man page. See the > > > + id="http://www.schweikhardt.net/man_page_howto.html"; > > > > + name="Man-Page-HOWTO">, man(7), the examples > > > > + cre

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 08:40:21PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I personally find the undocumented (7) man page frustrating, > > since I expected to see documentation, and was told there was none > > after a wait (yes, I had a slow machine). I wo

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I personally find the undocumented (7) man page frustrating, > since I expected to see documentation, and was told there was none > after a wait (yes, I had a slow machine). I would have much rather > not had my hopes raised, and that man itse

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 10:10:32AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:14:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > undocumented(7) man page. The current proposal is included below; it > > is not yet the final form; and input of the general community is > > Even if I real

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > + There should be a manual page at least for every program. If > + no manual page is available, this is considered as a bug Agree. The kde people will have a very hard time... *t -- --

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:14:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > undocumented(7) man page. The current proposal is included below; it > is not yet the final form; and input of the general community is Even if I really hate writing man pages, I second this proposal. I think that a lot o undoc

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

Hi, [Please followup to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is a proposal under consideration for changing the undocumented(7) man page. The current proposal is included below; it is not yet the final form; and input of the general community is solicited. I have brought this modificati

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:53:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > Er, um, oops. :) Thank you for spotting that. > --- policy.sgml.orig 2002-11-12 12:50:40.0 + > +++ policy.sgml 2002-11-12 12:51:30.0 + > @@ -7485,22 +7485,22 @@ > page included as well. >

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

[repost, in case the seconds should be signed. they probably should. if so, stating that somewhere in the developer corner would be great. or did I miss something?] hi, On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:53:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > --- policy.sgml.orig 2002-11-12 12:50:40.0 + > +++

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:27:50PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:53:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > + There should be a manual page at least for every program. If > > + no manual page is available, this is considered as a bug and > > + should be reported to

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:33:06PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > The reason why I'm supporting this proposal is because I find the > symlinks to undocumented(7) technically less than ideal in a number of > ways. [...] > Indeed it is useful to have better-than-nothing documentation for > newbies, so

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

I second the proposal in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. -- G. Branden Robinson|You can have my PGP passphrase when Debian GNU/Linux |you pry it from my cold, dead [EMAIL PROTECTED] |brain. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Adam Thornton

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:53:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > + There should be a manual page at least for every program. If > + no manual page is available, this is considered as a bug and > + should be reported to the Debian Bug Tracking System (the > + maintainer of th

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Colin Watson wrote: > --- policy.sgml.orig 2002-11-12 12:50:40.0 + > +++ policy.sgml 2002-11-12 12:51:30.0 + > @@ -7485,22 +7485,22 @@ > page included as well. > > > - > - If no manual page is available for a particula

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I second the diff in: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=39830&msg=108 - -- James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 iEYEAREC

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

hi, On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:53:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > --- policy.sgml.orig 2002-11-12 12:50:40.0 + > +++ policy.sgml 2002-11-12 12:51:30.0 + > @@ -7485,22 +7485,22 @@ > page included as well. > > > - > - If no manual page is

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:46:16PM +0100, Othmar Pasteka wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:12:09PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:58:55PM +0100, Othmar Pasteka wrote: > > > you probably edited the wrong document, this should be should :). > > > or did I miss something?

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

hi, On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:12:09PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:58:55PM +0100, Othmar Pasteka wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 04:26:02PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > > --- policy.sgml.orig 2002-10-30 16:13:24.0 + > > > +++ policy.sgml 2002-10-

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:58:55PM +0100, Othmar Pasteka wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 04:26:02PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > --- policy.sgml.orig2002-10-30 16:13:24.0 + > > +++ policy.sgml 2002-10-30 16:14:13.0 + > > @@ -7476,22 +7476,22 @@ > [snip] > > +

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

hi, On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 04:26:02PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > --- policy.sgml.orig 2002-10-30 16:13:24.0 + > +++ policy.sgml 2002-10-30 16:14:13.0 + > @@ -7476,22 +7476,22 @@ [snip] > + There must be a manual page at least for every program. If

Processed: Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 39830 wishlist Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT 30/10/2002] get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks Severity set to `wishlist'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administr

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 10:51:46AM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote: > I don't know the point of "must" and "should", since it is > the release manager who decides which bug is RC. It's to prevent severity inflation. It is presumably a bad thing for non-catastrophic violations of policy to result in bug

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 03:37:27 -0800, Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 11:09:25AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > Here's an updated version of Roland Rosenfeld's diff: > [...] > > + There must be a manual page at least for every program. If > This would make it an

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 06:02:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 11:09:25AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > + It is not very hard to write a man page. See the > + id="http://www.schweikhardt.net/man_page_howto.html"; > > + name="Man-Page-HOWTO">, m

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 11:09:25AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > + It is not very hard to write a man page. See the + id="http://www.schweikhardt.net/man_page_howto.html"; > + name="Man-Page-HOWTO">, man(7), the examples > + created by debmake or dh_make, or

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 01:56:35PM +, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 11:09:25AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > + To avoid duplicate bug reports about missing manual pages, > > + you should inform the user that you know about the missing > > + manual page in > > + /u

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 11:09:25AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > + To avoid duplicate bug reports about missing manual pages, > + you should inform the user that you know about the missing > + manual page in > + /usr/share/doc/package/TODO.Debian. Why not just remove this o

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 03:37:27AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 11:09:25AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > Here's an updated version of Roland Rosenfeld's diff: > [...] > > + There must be a manual page at least for every program. If > > This would make it an RC bug if

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 11:09:25AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > Here's an updated version of Roland Rosenfeld's diff: [...] > + There must be a manual page at least for every program. If This would make it an RC bug if no man page exists. I don't think that's what we want. (I know it's n

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

tags 39830 - fixed retitle 39830 [AMENDMENT 30/10/2002] get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks thanks On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:54:08AM +0100, Martin Godisch wrote: > On Thu, Oct 28, 1999 at 16:26:50 +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote: > > I proposed to change the "Manual pages" section of our policy to

Processed: Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tags 39830 - fixed Bug#39830: [REJECTED] get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks Tags removed: fixed > retitle 39830 [AMENDMENT 30/10/2002] get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks Bug#39830: [REJECTED] get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks Changed Bug title. >

Bug#39830: AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Thu, Oct 28, 1999 at 04:26:50PM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote: > I proposed to change the "Manual pages" section of our policy to get > rid of the undocumented(7) symlinks. I agree that this is a good idea (I'm seconding it). -- Raul

Bug#39830: AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote: > > + There must be a manual page at least for every program. If > > + no manual page is available, this is considered as a bug and > > + should be reported to the bug tracking system (the > > + maintainer of the package is allowed to d

Bug#39830: AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Thu, Oct 28, 1999 at 04:26:50PM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote: > severity 39830 normal > retitle 39830 [AMENDMENT 28/10/1999] get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks > thanks > > I proposed to change the "Manual pages" section of our policy to get > rid of the undocumented(7) symlinks. > > This pr

Processed: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 39830 normal Bug#39830: debian-policy: [PROPOSED]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks Severity set to `normal'. > retitle 39830 [AMENDMENT 28/10/1999] get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks Bug#39830: debian-policy: [PROPOSED]: get rid of undocu

Bug#39830: AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

severity 39830 normal retitle 39830 [AMENDMENT 28/10/1999] get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks thanks I proposed to change the "Manual pages" section of our policy to get rid of the undocumented(7) symlinks. This proposal was seconded by Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL