Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 45406 [REJECTED] Config files must have manpages
Bug#45406: [REJECTED] Config files must have manpages
Changed Bug title.
(By the way, that Bug is currently marked as done.)
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assi
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 01:32:54PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> 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 fil
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 08:25:32PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Yech. What's wrong with 'dpkg -S /etc/profile'?
I suppose I should have used /etc/ftpusers as my example.
However, you're right: dpkg -S gets it right most of the time.
--
Raul
On 18-Sep-99, 23:23 (CDT), Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 01:23:53PM -0700, Seth R Arnold wrote:
> > (Actually, if there is any easy way to use the debian package
> > management system to find out this info, I suppose that would make me
> > more than happy...)
>
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 10:14:09AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> I have no idea offhand. I just know it's created by inittex and it
> doesn't matter if I tell dpkg to replace mine or not, it will always be
> regenerated by initex.
Uh... initex IIRC generates only .fmt files which should not be co
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 11:59:27AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > > Should be add `intended for direct user modification'? Are there
> > > configfiles that are `internal' and should be allowed to remain
> > > undocumented?
> >
> > Yes there are some such config files. I believe tetex h
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 06:26:53PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > Should be add `intended for direct user modification'? Are there
> > configfiles that are `internal' and should be allowed to remain
> > undocumented?
>
> Yes there are some such config files. I believe tetex has one, for
> examp
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 06:26:53PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 02:32:09PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> > Should be add `intended for direct user modification'? Are there
> > configfiles that are `internal' and should be allowed to remain
> > undocumented?
>
> Yes t
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 01:23:53PM -0700, Seth R Arnold wrote:
> (Actually, if there is any easy way to use the debian package
> management system to find out this info, I suppose that would make me
> more than happy...)
Sadly, there's no ready reference for all the various interfaces
which have e
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 02:32:09PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> Should be add `intended for direct user modification'? Are there
> configfiles that are `internal' and should be allowed to remain
> undocumented?
Yes there are some such config files. I believe tetex has one, for
example.
--
> > No I don't think that it's good idea. There's no point adding a bunch of
> > undocumented symlink to all missing man page for configuration file. :-)
> >
> > I agree that having a man page for the configuration file is good but I
> > don't want to force Debian developers to write man page for
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.
24 matches
Mail list logo
