Bug#93724: marked as done (base-files: please move undocumented(7) from manpages)

system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) --- Begin Message --- Package: base-files Version: 2.2.8 Severity: wishlist As there was no objection to this on debian-devel, here's the wishlist bug: please move undocumented(7) from the manpages package into one marked essential, namely

Bug#39830: marked as done ([AMENDMENT 30/10/2002] get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks)

/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id BAA09700; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:36:19 +0200 Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:36:19 +0200 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: debian-policy: [PROPOSED]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: bug 3.2.2 Sender: [EMA

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

l-assed. (Or do I mean "no-assed"?) In fact, I might go so far as to say that unless your man page is *clearly* better than undocumented(7) (at least for your specific program), then it is in no way good enough to be called "half-assed". And I ought to know, as I've writte

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

f people seem > to think that as soon as they make a link to undocumented(7), their > job is done. Well it's not! If you can create a debian/control file, > you can write a simple man page that (at least) explains EXACTLY where > the full documentation for this program is to be

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

someone might think it's for exploits and such :) > > > > :-) Suggestions for better wording appreciated. Maybe just "for help > > when manual pages are not available"? > [snip] > > How about "undocumented programs"? Since that *is* what Policy i

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. > >

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 p

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

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

people in the know, > > but since man is still the most widely known unix documentation interface, > > new users may be helped by these pointers. > > I completely agree that the undocumented(7) page is useful to new users. > That's why I suggest that it should remain on the syste

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 > solic

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 frus

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

from the general developer > body is never a bad idea. I think that major changes in packaging > ought to receive wider circulation than just the policy list. I have no problem with that. What major change in packaging did you have in mind? This proposal clearly is not any such thing! *

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;

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

should provide man pages! Lots of people seem to think that as soon as they make a link to undocumented(7), their job is done. Well it's not! If you can create a debian/control file, you can write a simple man page that (at least) explains EXACTLY where the full documentation for this progr

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

ut since man is still the most widely known unix documentation interface, > new users may be helped by these pointers. 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 li

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

on 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 modification to the notice of the full > > developer list since I think that this ma

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

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 th

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 > solic

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

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 non

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 (ye

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

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

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

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

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

e to the - name="undocumented" section="7"> manual page may be > - provided. This symbolic link can be created from > - debian/rules like this: > - > -ln -s ../man7/undocumented.7.gz \ > - debian/tmp/usr/share/man/man[1-9]/requested_ma

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

d > - as a bug to the Debian Bug Tracking System, a symbolic link > - from the requested manual page to the - name="undocumented" section="7"> manual page may be > - provided. This symbolic link can be created from > - debian/

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

d if a policy editor wants to clarify the wording. > Note that I don't want to second this proposal even if you fix the above, > because I think the undocumented(7) manual page is better than nothing for > total newbies. Sorry. :) > > (Thanks for not outlawing it -- then I

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

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

to no manual page per each shipped program. Yeah, I know, I'm nitpicking. :) Note that I don't want to second this proposal even if you fix the above, because I think the undocumented(7) manual page is better than nothing for total newbies. Sorry. :) (Thanks for not outlawing i

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

t; manual page may be > - provided. This symbolic link can be created from > - debian/rules like this: > - > -ln -s ../man7/undocumented.7.gz \ > - debian/tmp/usr/share/man/man[1-9]/requested_manpage.[1-9].gz > - > - This manpage claims that the la

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

ented" section="7"> manual page may be > - provided. This symbolic link can be created from > - debian/rules like this: > - > -ln -s ../man7/undocumented.7.gz \ > - debian/tmp/usr/share/man/man[1-9]/requested_manpage.[1-9].gz > - > - This m

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

provided. This symbolic link can be created from - debian/rules like this: - -ln -s ../man7/undocumented.7.gz \ - debian/tmp/usr/share/man/man[1-9]/requested_manpage.[1-9].gz - - This manpage claims that the lack of a manpage has been - reported as a

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 ad

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

ay be - provided. This symbolic link can be created from - debian/rules like this: - -ln -s ../man7/undocumented.7.gz \ - debian/tmp/usr/share/man/man[1-9]/requested_manpage.[1-9].gz - - This manpage claims that the lack of a manpage has been - reporte

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

m, - utility, function or configuration file and this is reported - as a bug to the Debian Bug Tracking System, a symbolic link - from the requested manual page to the manual page may be - provided. This symbolic link can be created from - debian/rul

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" secti

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

Bug#93724: base-files: please move undocumented(7) from manpages (fwd)

Bah, I meant to file this in the bug report, and have the thread directed there. Sorry for the noise. --- start of forwarded message --- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson) To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#93724: base-files: please move undocumented(7) from manpages

Re: Bug#93724: base-files: please move undocumented(7) from manpages

Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'm sorry but I'm not willing to do this if the maintainer of the >manpages package disagrees. Please convince him first. I think the >policy group should be able to determine where the undocumented(7) >manpage should go, h

Processed: Bug#93724: base-files: please move undocumented(7) from manpages

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 93724 debian-policy Bug#93724: base-files: please move undocumented(7) from manpages Bug reassigned from package `base-files' to `debian-policy'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance

Bug#93724: base-files: please move undocumented(7) from manpages

reassign 93724 debian-policy thanks I'm sorry but I'm not willing to do this if the maintainer of the manpages package disagrees. Please convince him first. I think the policy group should be able to determine where the undocumented(7) manpage should go, hence the reassign. --

Re: undocumented.7 being abused

> > (Good thing I just happened to have a package that uses undocumented.7 > lying around, eh? :-) > > Anyway, except for the additional info on the new tag, it's a one-line > patch, so it should be pretty easy to add. > please see the BTS, Colin submitted a full pat

Re: undocumented.7 being abused

send it in. (Good thing I just happened to have a package that uses undocumented.7 lying around, eh? :-) Anyway, except for the additional info on the new tag, it's a one-line patch, so it should be pretty easy to add. cheers -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra-osis is too lon

Re: undocumented.7 being abused

"Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The previous lintian maintainer was considering the idea of making the >> use of undocumented(7) a warning. (Which seems appropriate, since you >> do have to have a bug report on file, which means tha

Re: undocumented.7 being abused

> >> Since lintian reports the absence of a manpage as an error, maintainers >> (specially new maintainer) proceed to install a link pointing to >> undocumented.7 instead of actually providing a manpage. > > The previous lintian maintainer was considering the

Re: undocumented.7 being abused

On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 07:37:10PM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > All the manpages are symlinks to undocumented.7. Looking at the bug > reports for gnome-panel, this hasn't been reported as a bug, so this is > a violation of policy. Of course, reporting this as a violatio

Re: undocumented.7 being abused

> Since lintian reports the absence of a manpage as an error, maintainers > (specially new maintainer) proceed to install a link pointing to > undocumented.7 instead of actually providing a manpage. Before > proposing to get rid of this, I'd like to hear opinions as to why w

undocumented.7 being abused

-panel /usr/share/man/man1/deskguide_applet.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/gmenu.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/panel.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/tasklist_applet.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/gnome-panel-properties-capplet.1.gz All the manpages are symlinks to undocumented.7. Looking at the bug reports for

About undocumented(7)

> manpage. Very irritating. It would have saved some effort if there simply > > were no manpage. > > You know, actually, that's very true. The undocumented(7) link is not > only useless, but actively annoying. The only possible benefit I can > see is that it makes it cle

Re: no lintian warning on undocumented(7)

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 12:27:26AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote: > > If we need an excuse, here's a simple one: policy requires that you > > have a bug report on file if you use undocumented(7), but lintian > > can&#x

Re: no lintian warning on undocumented(7)

On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 12:27:26AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote: > If we need an excuse, here's a simple one: policy requires that you > have a bug report on file if you use undocumented(7), but lintian > can't check this. (Not easily, anyway.) Alternatively, since for linti

Re: no lintian warning on undocumented(7)

ntian report a warning for the use of undocumented(7)? > > > > (I note from rereading that Gecko seemed to think I was trying to > > force a policy change -- in actuality, while I'd like to see policy > > change, I'd like to see the lintian warning in any case.) &g

Re: no lintian warning on undocumented(7)

On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 12:23:06AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote: > It's a bug report against lintian, not policy, but maybe it's > something we should discuss and decide on this group anyway: should > lintian report a warning for the use of undocumented(7)? > > (I note

Re: Custom undocumented(7)s are just as bad.

> From: Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 10:18:18PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > > I'd much rather have useful info in README.Debian: this is what you need > > to do to finish configuring (if necessary), here's a one-liner for each > > major binary of the package, h

Re: Custom undocumented(7)s are just as bad.

> From: Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'd much rather have useful info in README.Debian: this is what you need > to do to finish configuring (if necessary), here's a one-liner for each > major binary of the package, here's what to read to find out more (info > pages, man pages, web site,

Re: Custom undocumented(7)s are just as bad.

On Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 06:33:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I guess I need to put xbase-clients up for adoption then. Eh? Considering the rate at which you've been fixing X bugs, I hope that's just a rhetorical statement. You've been doing great, it's just that there's a lot of work whic

Re: Custom undocumented(7)s are just as bad.

On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 05:46:49PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Zed" == Zed Pobre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Zed> This requirement cannot then be placed concurrently with the > Zed> requirement to have a manpage for every binary. In some larger > Zed> packages, it's pretty diff

Re: no lintian warning on undocumented(7) (was Re: Custom undocumented(7)s...)

>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Chris> It's a bug report against lintian, not policy, but maybe Chris> it's something we should discuss and decide on this group Chris> anyway: should lintian report a warning f

no lintian warning on undocumented(7) (was Re: Custom undocumented(7)s...)

ct phrase? :) > Such a list has existed for a long time, see the lintain report pages. But lintian doesn't report packages which use undocumented(7). The 308 packages (853 actual incidents) reported as binary-without-manpage are those which have *nothing at all*. I know of no easy

Re: Custom undocumented(7)s are just as bad.

Seth R Arnold wrote: > On one of our web servers could be a list of binaries in the traditional > PATH without manpages. People could sign up for working on a manpage for a > binary. (Perhaps `executable' is the correct phrase? :) Such a list has existed for a long time, see the lintain report pag

Re: Wait, it *DOES* say all programs! (was Re: Custom undocumented(7)s)

Chris Waters wrote: > > The point seems to be, if it's something people would reasonably > > expect find a man page on, something should be done. > > Yes, that seems reasonable. But I'm afraid it's ambiguous. The > question is, what *would* we reasonably expect to find man pages on? > Do private

Re: Wait, it *DOES* say all programs! (was Re: Custom undocumented(7)s)

Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Chris Waters wrote: > > Actuallychecking...this seems to be true, and I don't think we > > want it to be true. Every program that's found in the default path, > > yes, but I was certainly under the impression that we don't want or > > need man pages for

Re: Wait, it *DOES* say all programs! (was Re: Custom undocumented(7)s)

ing something > in policy that already addresses this. Well I don't know, policy paints all library function calls with the same brush: If no manual page is available for a particular program, utility or function and this is reported as a bug on debian-bugs, a symbolic link

Re: Custom undocumented(7)s are just as bad.

>>"Seth" == Seth R Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Question: would the distribution quality really suffer if we >> did alienate them? Seth> Probably not, at least right away. However, in the long run, if Seth> Debian gets a reputation for being beligerant to its Seth> developers, peopl

Re: Custom undocumented(7)s are just as bad.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Juergen A. Erhard wrote: > If Debian should ever start restricting package inclusion based on > what a package does (judging quality of packaging is ok), it would be > time to fork. And I guess there'd be lots of people who'd think the > same way. I think if you judge 'qual

Re: Custom undocumented(7)s are just as bad.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > "Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Jason> On 30 Jan 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> Why is there such an imperative need to get every peice of >> software out there i Debian, no matter how sloppily it is >>

Re: Custom undocumented(7)s are just as bad.

On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 02:18:56PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 30-Jan-00, 08:53 (CST), Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 10:18:18PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > > > I'd much rather have useful info in README.Debian: this is what you need > > > to do to

Wait, it *DOES* say all programs! (was Re: Custom undocumented(7)s)

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Finally, there's no requirement in policy that every single file have > a man page. Ever single program, sure, but that's not the same thing. Actuallychecking...this seems to be true, and I don't think we want it to be true. Every program that's fou

Re: Custom undocumented(7)s are just as bad.

Here is a proposal, which list subscribers may or may not like, so let me hear some feedback if you agree or disagree. On one of our web servers could be a list of binaries in the traditional PATH without manpages. People could sign up for working on a manpage for a binary. (Perhaps `executable' i

Re: Custom undocumented(7)s are just as bad.

On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 02:21:22PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 29-Jan-00, 23:19 (CST), Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Or, for example, there's no "X" debian package. Yet, if you look at > > xbase-clients, for example, you'll see that there's an outstanding bug > > report for ev

Re: Custom undocumented(7)s are just as bad.

On 29-Jan-00, 23:19 (CST), Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or, for example, there's no "X" debian package. Yet, if you look at > xbase-clients, for example, you'll see that there's an outstanding bug > report for every program which is missing a binary. Well, I should hope so! A program

  1   2   >