misc on the documentation, at functions, confstr

misc on the documentation, at functions, confstr

[Marco Maggi]

Ciao,

  in the  documentation of  glibc 2.27,  the description  of "confstr()"
says:

   Currently there is just one parameter you can read with @code{confstr}:

and then it lists more than  one parameter; the following parameters are
missing from the glibc documentation, but they are present in the manual
page of the same function:

   _CS_GNU_LIBC_VERSION
   _CS_GNU_LIBPTHREAD_VERSION

I see that these constants are used in the very source tree of glibc.

  The "at"  functions (openat,  linkat, unlinkat, ...)  are undocumented
despite being in the POSIX standard; is there a specific reason?

  What about the executable program  "getconf"?  Is it actually meant to
be fully undocumented?

  Is it fine to complain about the documentation? ;-)

TIA
-- 
Marco Maggi

Re: misc on the documentation, at functions, confstr

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 02/14/2018 10:34 PM, Marco Maggi wrote:
> Ciao,
> 
>   in the  documentation of  glibc 2.27,  the description  of "confstr()"
> says:
> 
>    Currently there is just one parameter you can read with @code{confstr}:
> 
> and then it lists more than  one parameter; 

This is a bug. Please submit a glibc manual patch :-)

> the following parameters are
> missing from the glibc documentation, but they are present in the manual
> page of the same function:
> 
>    _CS_GNU_LIBC_VERSION
>    _CS_GNU_LIBPTHREAD_VERSION
> 
> I see that these constants are used in the very source tree of glibc.

This is a bug. Please submit a glibc manual patch :-)

>   The "at"  functions (openat,  linkat, unlinkat, ...)  are undocumented
> despite being in the POSIX standard; is there a specific reason?

This is a bug. Please submit a glibc manual patch :-)

You cannot copy the linux man pages and must create the documentation on
your own please, otherwise this may violate the copyright of the manual
pages themselves.

>   What about the executable program  "getconf"?  Is it actually meant to
> be fully undocumented?

getconf *should* be documented, but it is not. We'd have to find a place
to document it in the glibc manual.

This is a bug. Please submit a glibc manual patch :-)

>   Is it fine to complain about the documentation? ;-)

Absolutely.

Please see the 'Contribution Checklist' for the list of things you need to contribute:
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.