Updated Gnu tools manpages, maybe you'd like to know? ('gnumaniak')

Updated Gnu tools manpages, maybe you'd like to know? ('gnumaniak')

[Soren Andersen]

Hello List Readers,

I checked the archives and didn't see signs that this was previously known: I came across a project ("gnumaniak") that is creating more updated man pages for (many of the core) Gnu apps we use ...

http://www.userfriendly.net/linux/RPM/contrib/noarch/noarch/gnumaniak-1.4-1.noarch.html

This seems like a good thing ... I know the GNU org prefer info docus as a policy, and are not keeping the manpages current. Several times i haven't had `info' working but man was, so i think this is a good thing. Not trying to argue policy or anything, just sharing information.

As an aside: the packaging posed a significant obstacle for me: this is done up as an rpm, and I didn't have any `rpm', and so I downloaded the `rpm' Cygwin port from:

http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/V1.1/rpm-3.0.3/index.html

and tried to install it. I didn't see anything (in time) telling me to `touch /etc/mtab'  after running `rpm --initdb' tho, and so i cannot say I have it running yet (I'll have to reboot into NT before i can try to apply this newly-acquired information...).

BTW -- is there any other, newer, in any way 'better' rpm for Cygwin which i should know about?

Best to cygwin in the New Year,
     Soren Andersen

-- 
  Soren Andersen
  soren_andersen@fastmail.fm

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Updated Gnu tools manpages, maybe you'd like to know? ('gnumaniak')

[Gerrit P. Haase]

 Soren,

2002-01-07 12:54:36, du schriebst:

> I checked the archives and didn't see signs that this was
> previously known: I came across a project ("gnumaniak")
> that is creating more updated man pages for (many of the
> core) Gnu apps we use ...

> http://www.userfriendly.net/linux/RPM/contrib/noarch/noarch/gnumaniak-1.4-1.noarch.html

ftp://ftp-linux.cc.gatech.edu/pub/linux/docs/man-pages/
ftp://ftp-linux.cc.gatech.edu/pub/linux/docs/man-pages/gnumaniak-1.5.tar.gz

But this file is about two years old...probably are the most
manpages at your current Cygwin installation more up to date;)


Gerrit
-- 
=^..^=


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Updated Gnu tools manpages, maybe you'd like to know? ('gnumaniak')

[Soren Andersen]

On 7 Jan 2002 at 13:11, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:

"Soren Andersen" <soren_andersen@speedymail.org> wrote:
> >  creating more updated man pages for (many of the core) Gnu apps we use ...
> > http://www.userfriendly.net/linux/RPM/contrib/noarch/noarch/gnumaniak-1. 4-1.noarch.html

> ftp://ftp-linux.cc.gatech.edu/pub/linux/docs/man-pages/
> ftp://ftp-linux.cc.gatech.edu/pub/linux/docs/man-pages/gnumaniak-1.5.tar.gz

> But this file is about two years old...probably are the most
> manpages at your current Cygwin installation more up to date;)

I wonder about how we would know that. Oh, I suppose someone could get very serious and look at each page 
for a revision date (I don't know `man' well enough to be 100% sure, but I think I recall that a revision date is 
part of the formatting...). My point is however, if GNU say they are no longer trying to keep man pages current, 
then how can we know how out-of-date any arbitrary one might be? maybe you have inside information (by 
"inside" I mean access to facts about GNU which are not first-glance general knowledge or something like 
that). If you do have a specific reason to believe you know (i don't mean to sound combative, you just didn't 
support your contention with anything, leaving -- imho -- a question in the reader's mind) that the Cygwin-
installed apps' man-pages are going to be more current than something dated in 1999 or 2000, pls tell me.

  Thanks --for the urls, great! ,
    Soren Andersen


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Updated Gnu tools manpages, maybe you'd like to know? ('gnumaniak')

[Robert Collins]

Given that info documentation can be converted to manpages, I see little
reason to maintain man pages separately.

Rob


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Updated Gnu tools manpages, maybe you'd like to know? ('gnumaniak')

[Soren Andersen]

On 8 Jan 2002 at 22:03, Robert Collins wrote:

> Given that info documentation can be converted to manpages, I see little
> reason to maintain man pages separately.

Over the course of using cygwin in the past, `info' wouldn't always work 
for me. Maybe some flag or .rc file hadn't been set, whatever. It does work 
now.

Just because something "can" (in abstract principle) be done, doesn't 
always mean *everyone* currently "can" or (more to the point) "knows how". 
That's the whole point of binary distros of any[open-source]thing, is it 
not? So that people can focus on what they are most interested in 
developing or using?

To re-shift the discussion to another perspective, i suppose what interests 
me is to know how to know how current the manpages *as installed by a 
cygwin package* (as set up by "setup" in the cases where they are, which is 
frequent) are, relative to the version of the tool itself. And as I 
mentioned, there's the direct (albeit laborious) way, checking the manpages 
(and/or filestamps of their files) individually; might there be a more 
general policy we could be informed about, that would hold true most of the 
time, regarding how out-of-date the manpages might be? Someone reading this 
might know.

   Thanks,
      Soren Andersen


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Updated Gnu tools manpages, maybe you'd like to know? ('gnumaniak')

[Robert Collins]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Soren Andersen" <soren_andersen@speedymail.org>

> On 8 Jan 2002 at 22:03, Robert Collins wrote:
>
> > Given that info documentation can be converted to manpages, I see
little
> > reason to maintain man pages separately.
>
> Over the course of using cygwin in the past, `info' wouldn't always
work
> for me. Maybe some flag or .rc file hadn't been set, whatever. It does
work
> now.

Yes, I know. Remember that I'm writing my emails in the context of what
has been fixed. info is a known previous issue, and the packaging
guidelines explicitly mention handling of info pages.

> Just because something "can" (in abstract principle) be done, doesn't
> always mean *everyone* currently "can" or (more to the point) "knows
how".
> That's the whole point of binary distros of any[open-source]thing, is
it
> not? So that people can focus on what they are most interested in
> developing or using?

Do you want a philsophical discussion on the english language? I presume
you simply missed the point of my comment. Packages such as bash
(picking one at random) have 'up to date' manpages. I believe (haven't
checked the Makefile) they achieve this by virtue of converting their
info documentation to man pages, not by manually updating the man pages.

So it doesn't matter if everyone can. It matters if the package
maintainers can. It doesn't matter if only the upstream package
developers know how, their makefiles do it for the package maintainers
(most of the time).

> general policy we could be informed about, that would hold true most
of the
> time, regarding how out-of-date the manpages might be? Someone reading
this
> might know.

There is no policy regarding manpages for packages in the cygwin net
distribution at this point in time. Common sense prevails.

Rob


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/