From: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>
To: <soren_andersen@speedymail.org>, <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Subject: Re: Updated Gnu tools manpages, maybe you'd like to know? ('gnumaniak')
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:12:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <034601c19899$fc1c35d0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3C3B34DC.5674.3155089@localhost>
----- 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 time, regarding how out-of-date the manpages might be?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/
prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-01-08 23:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-01-06 23:05 Soren Andersen
2002-01-07 4:21 ` Gerrit P. Haase
2002-01-08 1:19 ` Soren Andersen
2002-01-08 3:03 ` Robert Collins
2002-01-08 15:05 ` Soren Andersen
2002-01-08 15:12 ` Robert Collins [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='034601c19899$fc1c35d0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks' \
--to=robert.collins@itdomain.com.au \
--cc=cygwin@cygwin.com \
--cc=soren_andersen@speedymail.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).