Re: Bug#39830: debian-policy: [PROPOSED]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
> How about:
> If no manual page is available for a particular program, utility
> or function, this is a bug in the package. Until this is
> rectified, a symbolic link from the missing manual page to the
> undocumented(7) manual page must be provided. This indicates that
> you, the maintainer, are aware of this bug in your package.
No, the objection is to the continued use of undocumented(7). The
goal is to get rid of this, so that we no longer confuse people by
making it seem like there's a man page when there isn't. I can't tell
you how furious I get after doing dpkg --listfiles to discover that
there is a man page, to then run man and find that it's just that
damnable undocumented(7) symlink again.
Not having a man page is a bug. Using undocumented(7) is a bug, but a
bug blessed by policy. The idea that policy should bless a bug just
seems wrong. Plus, it may well be causing people to think that
they've solved the problem when they provide a link to
undocumented(7). "What bug? My package complies with policy."
Can you provide any positive arguments in *favor* of undocumented(7)?
We've been unable to find anyone who can justify it or explain why it
was adopted as policy in the first place. But, of course, it *was*
adopted as policy at some point, so surely someone must have had a
reason, and many of us, including me, are rather curious what that
reason was.
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
Reply to: