On 23-Jun-99, 16:56 (CDT), Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The new proposal addresses this. It requires that the maintainer
> describe the situation wrt man pages in TODO.Debian.
This won't keep people from filing duplicate bugs, as it requires the
person to take a second step to ac
Jim Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Essentially, the reason is to keep bug reports down. Some folx report bugs en
> masse and undocumented(7) was/is seen as a way to keep the bug reports down.
Yes, but it's not working, as demonstrated by a) all the packages that
use undocumented(7), but *don
Bug blessed by policy...
Essentially, the reason is to keep bug reports down. Some folx report bugs en
masse and undocumented(7) was/is seen as a way to keep the bug reports down.
If "man foo" could say "There is no man page, see for equivalent/
better information, the maintainer is aware of the
Nicolás>> Er... should I remove it from the manpages package? Should I
Nicolás>> wait? =)
Manoj> Removing it from the manpages package before policy changes
would be
Manoj> at least an important bug.
I know, I know... =)
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
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
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,
>>"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:
> -
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 symbolic link from the missing manual page to the
> undocumented(7) ma
Hi,
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 symbolic link from the missing manual page to the
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> In that vein, perhaps the best policy is to not require the package
> maintainer to file a bug report himself/herself.
This part was changed in my new version:
If no manual page is available, this is considered as a bug and
should be reporte
On Jun 21, Chris Waters wrote:
> I think that the old policy of using undocumented(7) made it too easy
> for people to ignore the requirement to have a *real* man page, and I
> think this proposal (without editorial commentary) will go a long way
> toward addressing that issue, since undocumented(7
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 disagree (mildly). Policy should state
On Jun 20, Chris Waters wrote:
> Yes, this seems like a reasonable and satisfactory proposal, I will second.
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 fo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Yes, this seems like a reasonable and satisfactory proposal, I will second.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.1, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBN22HMzZs0/7rwRsBAQFdwgQAkBrgDrQADdPjLKEMBq/U28ejCwMVD
Package: debian-policy
Version: 2.5.1.0
Severity: wishlist
I propose the following change to chapter "6.1 Manual pages":
--- schnipp
--- policy.sgml Tue Apr 27 18:14:00 1999
+++ policy.sgml Mon Jun 21 01:17:54 1999
@@ -2868,20 +2868,14 @@
21 matches
Mail list logo
