On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 04:53:26AM -0700, Kevin Dalley wrote:
> Who reminds the volunteer that the man page needs to be updated each
> time the primary documentation is updated? Unfortunately, as FSF has
> found out, if the primary documentation is in texi (or sgml, or html),
> there might be s
>
> Date:04 Jul 1999 12:26:55 +1000
> To: Roland Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
> From:Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Bug#39830: [PROPOSED]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
>
>
Roland Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But this doesn't solve the other problem: dpkg -L shows these symlinks
> as real man pages. This is annoying at least for me...
dpkg is not a documentation browser, it is a package manager. It really
doesn't matter if dpkg -L shows symlinks or not,
Manoj Srivastava <[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 useles
> Who reminds the volunteer that the man page needs to be updated each
> time the primary documentation is updated?
er.. whoever files the bug report that says the man page is out of date??
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 manual page is missing,
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 12:06:53AM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> > But this doesn't solve the other problem: dpkg -L shows these
> > symlinks as real man pages. This is annoying at least for me...
> But why on earth are you looking for manual pages
On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 12:06:53AM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> But this doesn't solve the other problem: dpkg -L shows these symlinks
> as real man pages. This is annoying at least for me...
But why on earth are you looking for manual pages with dpkg -L?
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB (ex
On Sun, 27 Jun 1999, Steve Greenland wrote:
> The advantage of undocumented(7) is all the info is (supposedly) in
> one place: "There is no man page for this program,
Correct.
I personally prefer to get a simple message about this instead of
reading the same undocumented(7) every time, but this i
Jim Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If it is decided to keep undocumented(7), howbout we make dpkg -L
> report on symlinks to it?
Riiight. We'll just file a bug against dpkg. That'll get some
action! :-)
Anyway, that doesn't address the issue of people who seem to think
their job is done
Hi Roland, *:
If it is decided to keep undocumented(7), howbout we make dpkg -L report on
symlinks to it?
-Jim
> 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 manual page is missing, and that he/she is
> aware of the bug?
Thi
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
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 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,
>>"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
On Tue, 22 Jun 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> How about:
>
> --
> If no manual page is available for a particular program, utility
> or function, this is a bug in the package. Until this is
> rectified, a
On Jun 21, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Chris Lawrence wrote:
>
> > I would be willing to support this proposal with the following
> > additional sentence included:
> >
> > "It is not very hard to write a manual page; see the example manual
> > page provided by dh_make for a tem
On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> I would be willing to support this proposal with the following
> additional sentence included:
>
> "It is not very hard to write a manual page; see the example manual
> page provided by dh_make for a template."
I fully agree with the first part of thi
22 matches
Mail list logo
