> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> In a message dated 3/22/99 10:21:50 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> labs.com writes:
>
> > > Force of habit, I suppose Maybe it's time to remove the man pages for
> > > those programs that also have info pages, eh?
> >
> > Don't remove the
"HM" == Hamish Moffatt schrieb am 24 Mar 1999 23:19:54 +0100:
HM> IMHO, the info browser (in emacs or standalone) adds little
HM> functionality over a plain HTML document, except that it is much
HM> less accessible for non-emacs users.
I disagree. What if you don't have lynx installed and
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 10:24:29AM +0100, Holger Schauer wrote:
> IMO man pages serve as a quick thorough overview and should be as
> compact as possible. Info pages serve IMO a different need: they
> should provide detailed information, perhaps for some more obscure or
> advanced features. If _the
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 10:24:29AM +0100, Holger Schauer wrote:
> "MB" == Mark Brown schrieb am 23 Mar 1999 03:32:21 +0100:
> MB> ->HTML conversion seems to be the most likely route
> MB> for those that want a standard interface at present.
> I am strongly against having a _single_ interfac
Olaf Rogalsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This would be wonderful!!! Only one single point from where to search for
> documentation. If you ever executed a command like
> find /usr -type f|xargs egrep -li 'proxy|squid'
> then you know, that a central point for documentation would be a great time
"MB" == Mark Brown schrieb am 23 Mar 1999 03:32:21 +0100:
MB> ->HTML conversion seems to be the most likely route
MB> for those that want a standard interface at present.
I am strongly against having a _single_ interface to
documentation. Diversity is a good thing, IMHO, especially in this
On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 11:55:08AM -0800, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> Now isn't there a utility that will create 'man' pages out of 'info'
> ones? If so then at least some current information may be presented
> in man format for those of us that are more used to the 'older'
This would be hard - the
Timothy Hospedales wrote:
> Could someone tell me how to read info pages / find out what info
> pages
> are available? I know this is probably a dumb question, but I don't seem to
> have
> an info command - so does info use a different kind of syntax to man
> or is it a special package
Timothy Hospedales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could someone tell me how to read info pages / find out what info
> pages
> are available? I know this is probably a dumb question, but I don't seem to
> have
> an info command - so does info use a different kind of syntax to man
> or is
In a message dated 3/22/99 10:21:50 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
labs.com writes:
> > Force of habit, I suppose Maybe it's time to remove the man
pages for
> > those programs that also have info pages, eh?
>
> Don't remove the manpages. And don't start an "info vs. man"
Could someone tell me how to read info pages / find out what info pages
are available? I know this is probably a dumb question, but I don't seem to have
an info command - so does info use a different kind of syntax to man
or is it a special package or what?
Thanks!
Tim
> [EMAIL PROTECTED
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I've no intention of starting a flame war - but the fact remains, if the man
> pages are no longer being supported by developers, there's no sense including
> them in the man pages package. It just adds to the confusion.
Not true. If the manpage says "this manpage is
In a message dated 3/22/99 10:21:50 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
labs.com writes:
> > Force of habit, I suppose Maybe it's time to remove the man pages for
> > those programs that also have info pages, eh?
>
> Don't remove the manpages. And don't start an "info vs. man" wa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Force of habit, I suppose Maybe it's time to remove the man pages for
> those programs that also have info pages, eh?
Don't remove the manpages. And don't start an "info vs. man" war, either,
please!
--
+- pgp key available -
I also agree with the idea of having a single starting point for
documentation. And something I kind of wonder about - why are there always so
many documents for a given program? Can't they be combined into one document
devided into sections? With info pages, you can get to any specific section
> > I have to admit, there is a bit of truth to this, alot of people just don't
> > have the time to read 18 different documents in 18 different locations. Man
> > pages, info pages, FAQs, HOWTOs, mini-HOWTOs, READMEs, INSTALL docs, package
> > descriptions... it is a bit daunting. I do feel tha
On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 10:36:43AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have to admit, there is a bit of truth to this, alot of people just don't
> have the time to read 18 different documents in 18 different locations. Man
> pages, info pages, FAQs, HOWTOs, mini-HOWTOs, READMEs, INSTALL docs, pack
>
> I have to admit, there is a bit of truth to this, alot of people just don't
> have the time to read 18 different documents in 18 different locations. Man
> pages, info pages, FAQs, HOWTOs, mini-HOWTOs, READMEs, INSTALL docs, package
> descriptions... it is a bit daunting. I do feel that anyo
On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 02:40:30AM +0100, Laurent PICOULEAU wrote:
> >
> > 2) Edit /etc/init.d/xdm and insert an 'exit 0' at the top of the file.
> >Xdm will not even start or listen with this option.
> >
> Thanks for these suggestions. I'll get an eye on these possibilities ASAP.
Or just d
On Mon, 15 Mar, 1999 à 08:20:25PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> *- On 16 Mar, Laurent PICOULEAU wrote about "Re: Slink upgrade and xwindows"
> >
> > There was a point that I liked before : the possibility to not start xdm
> > even
> > if it was installe
=)
On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:36:43 EST
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Slink upgrade and xwindows
>
> In a message dated 3/15/99 8:05:15 PM Central Stan
In a message dated 3/15/99 8:05:15 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> Please don't slam people for not reading everything. That is why you
> are needed- because they don't have time, or maybe they just aren't
> capable of understanding everything- again, that is why you are n
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 07:45:23PM -0600, William Lacy wrote:
> >I don't know how I am supposed to "support" XFree86 if people won't read:
>
> >1) the Debian release notes
> >2) the Debian package descriptions
> >3) anything in /usr/doc/* with the string "README" in the filename
> >4) anything in
I would like to say a couple of things, I am just seeing this for the
first time. I do understand now the reason that these packages were
activated, and I do appreciate the work that Branden and others do/have
done for Debian. I am sorry if I offended any developers as my comment
was pretty harsh
*- On 16 Mar, Laurent PICOULEAU wrote about "Re: Slink upgrade and xwindows"
>
> There was a point that I liked before : the possibility to not start xdm even
> if it was installed. Why ? Well sometimes I'm trying to advocates linux to
> friends and showing them th
On Mon, 15 Mar, 1999 à 01:37:58AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I sometimes wonder why I bother writing any documentation at all. People
> will just ignore it and then chime in with profound insights like
>
> "THIS--SUCKS"
>
> when anything changes.
>
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 01:30:36PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> *- On 15 Mar, Mike Merten wrote about "Re: Slink upgrade and xwindows"
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 08:53:55AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> As long as you were removing xdm
*- On 15 Mar, Mike Merten wrote about "Re: Slink upgrade and xwindows"
> On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 08:53:55AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> *- On 15 Mar, Richard Harran wrote about "Re: Slink upgrade and xwindows"
>> > After reading this thread, I
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 08:53:55AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> *- On 15 Mar, Richard Harran wrote about "Re: Slink upgrade and xwindows"
> > After reading this thread, I've removed xbase and (unwanted) xdm (I'll
> > own up, I didn't rtfm, and it cause
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 01:37:58AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 07:32:59PM -0800, George Bonser wrote:
> > Well, maybe I should READ those package descriptions :)
>
> I should make this the offical motto of the Debian X packages.
>
> I don't know how I am supposed to
*- On 14 Mar, George Bonser wrote about "Re: Slink upgrade and xwindows"
> On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
>> As a developer, I track the debian-devel-changes mailing list. I freely
>> admit that this is not something we can reasonably expect our u
*- On 15 Mar, Richard Harran wrote about "Re: Slink upgrade and xwindows"
> After reading this thread, I've removed xbase and (unwanted) xdm (I'll
> own up, I didn't rtfm, and it caused me a problem upgrading
> hamm->slink). However, I dpkg warnings:
>
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 07:20:29AM +, Richard Harran wrote:
> After reading this thread, I've removed xbase and (unwanted) xdm (I'll
> own up, I didn't rtfm, and it caused me a problem upgrading
> hamm->slink). However, I dpkg warnings:
> while removeing xdm, directory /var/state/xdm not
e for /etc/X11/xdm. Is it ok for me to manually remove these
directories and their contents, or will I break something?
Thanks in advance,
Rich
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> *- On 14 Mar, George Bonser wrote about "Re: Slink upgrade and xwindows"
> > On Sun, 14 Mar 1999 [
On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 10:58:15PM -0800, George Bonser wrote:
> The problem is that many of the other packages DO NOT note in the package
> descriptions what has changed and the other docs are only available AFTER
> you have installed them unless you want to manually take it apart and look
> at it
On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 07:32:59PM -0800, George Bonser wrote:
> Well, maybe I should READ those package descriptions :)
I should make this the offical motto of the Debian X packages.
I don't know how I am supposed to "support" XFree86 if people won't read:
1) the Debian release notes
2) the De
*- On 14 Mar, George Bonser wrote about "Re: Slink upgrade and xwindows"
> On Sun, 14 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> xdm was installed on your system before. It was part of the old xbase
>> package. The reason xdm was sucked in during the upgrade was that
>
*- On 14 Mar, George Bonser wrote about "Re: Slink upgrade and xwindows"
> On Sun, 14 Mar 1999, William Lacy wrote:
>
>> I think that installing xdm and xfs as part of the upgrade is a very bad
>> idea for several reasons:
>>
>> 1) This is a very big cha
The Slink upgrade went great for me.
Upgraded without rebooting. A couple of days later I needed to reboot
to run a windows program (it had been 2 weeks). I had read "The great X
reorganization" but forgot to remove xdm and xfs. So when I did reboot
I got the xwindows login which is why I am wr
39 matches
Mail list logo
