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

Re: Manpages for binaries not in $PATH

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 07:18:39PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
This suggests that it should have a manpage. But, it's a *should*. On the other
hand, I know that many "entities" which are not in $PATH have their own manpage
-- see for example Perl modules.

How should I behave here?

I think the obvious answer makes your question moot: combine the two
into one binary and benchmark to decide what to do, as suggested in

If you're not willing to do that, then the prudent decision is to decide
whether the user ever needs to run the program manually.  In the case of
cpp-4.3, you never need to run cc1 (since it is an implementation
detail), so it does not require a manpage.  It seems that in the case of
john, the main executable cannot figure out which implementation is
better, so the user may need to run the program manually.  Thus it needs
a manpage.


brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only
troff on top of XML: http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc/code/thwack
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: