> The GNU OS developer guidelines are explicit in demanding info as
> the default, and in suggesting that man pages may not be suitable
> for a project.
This is true. On the other hand, even Emacs comes with a fine man
page, describing its command line switches (it says that it will only
be updat
> On the one hand I find that texinfo is an excellent means to write
> technical documentation with TeX (it is much better than LaTeX in
> that respect, but I take mm instead anyday), but as a replacement to
> man pages failed and it did it 15 years ago already.
Yes. info pages can't replace man
On 10/24/05, D. E. Evans wrote:
>
> So again, a *GNU* user will be looking to info everytime, not a
> man page. As a BSD user, I would look to a man page everytime,
> since man is the default for BSD (as for any other UNIX platform).
> The irony of groff as a GNU project is not lost on me.
I'm s
D. E. Evans wrote:
> The GNU OS developer guidelines are explicit in demanding info as
> the default, and in suggesting that man pages may not be suitable
> for a project.
Exactly so. These are *developer* guidelines, for which the user
won't care two hoots. So, playing Devil's Advocate...
> So
On 10/24/05, Keith MARSHALL wrote:
> [Concerning the availability of man vs. info pages]
>
> D. E. Evans wrote:
> > I agree. However, as a GNU program, GNU users are going to
> > automatically look at info, not man...
>
> Says who? I'm a GNU/Linux user, and I will go for the man page
> first, eve
D. E. Evans wrote:
> I agree. However, as a GNU program, GNU users are going to
> automatically look at info, not man...
Says who? I'm a GNU/Linux user, and I will go for the man page
first, every time.
The GNU OS developer guidelines are explicit in demanding info as
the default
[Concerning the availability of man vs. info pages]
D. E. Evans wrote:
> I agree. However, as a GNU program, GNU users are going to
> automatically look at info, not man...
Says who? I'm a GNU/Linux user, and I will go for the man page
first, every time.
As others have said, it is intensely ir
> I think the manual should be maintained seperately and simply as a
> basic reference, refering to the info file for more complicated or
> detailed information.
Yes. groff(7) aims to be complete and should be exactly that.
> The first thing to do would be to setup an organized structure of
> wh
I don't -- and won't -- use EMACS: I can't stand it! I do, and
want to, use vim. I like, and want to have, good man pages which
list all the essentials of the behaviour of commands. I rarely
want to get into the labyrinth of a texinfo document (though I'm
pleased it's there I need th
I won't give up on groff.texinfo. This consequently means that we
need a groff2texinfo converter (or groff2info to get the more
important info files) in case the source files are in groff
format. Personally, I *really* like the indexing features of
`info' which are quite power
10 matches
Mail list logo
