[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#8106: `undocumented' manpage



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:

> On 18 Mar 1997, Chris Walker wrote:
> 
> > Back in the mists of time, I recall a discussion of this, and I
> > thought that the decision was to used undocumented.7.  IIRC, the
> > reasoning behind this was that the compressed version would need to be
> > decompressed and cached for each page, thus taking time and a small
> > amount of disk space. Have I got this wrong? 
> 
>  I've tested that. man only creates a cat7/undocumented.7.gz.
> 
> > This does appear to have changed recently though as my (stable) system
> > has /usr/man/man7/undocumented.7 and not  /usr/man/man7/undocumented.7.gz
> > 
> > You are however correct in asserting that policy states to make a link
> > to undocumented.7.gz. Can you tell me why it was decided to switch (or
> > even better point me at the discussion).
> 
>  I took the manpages package and read the policy. And I did what the
> policy expects...

This must have been changed before I took over the policy. Is there
someone out there that knows the reasons for this change?

As Chris Walker said, it's faster and saves more disk space if we use
"undocumented".

IMHO it would be ok to make this an exception in the policy manual.


Any comments?


Thanks,

Chris

- --                  Christian Schwarz
                     schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@debian.org,
Debian is looking     schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de, bm955877@muenchen.org
for a logo! Have a
look at our drafts     PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7  34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
at    http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/debian-logo/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1

iQCVAwUBMy7BjU4c72jvRVaFAQEALQQAyxSzi8Y/sChFY/WRRpMJRfrtahZSA0Wk
BmpywHB4tttTl+2XkGLWDQJqP+iOk+Iz5wDh6NKa/zlfDV/ZjBWcjjMs9+tgpkak
64uIVn6HAmUV5k/1yOVL5hOXR/kCbGOSraLgG27fNjpWx1VGN8394d68p1X6bIYu
6syUpb7EdeE=
=Rh4n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: