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

Bug#170472: marked as done (info: top Info pages of different packages wildly differ)

Your message dated Wed, 3 Sep 2008 10:29:53 +0200
with message-id <200809031029.53753.holger@layer-acht.org>
and subject line "How 'bout just filing wishlist bugs with patches?"
has caused the Debian Bug report #170472,
regarding info: top Info pages of different packages wildly differ
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org

170472: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=170472
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: info
Version: 4.1-2
Severity: normal

Gentlemen, the top Info pages of different packages wildly differ:
$ info m4
has a nice header "GNU m4"
$ info gawk
has a lower level header 'General introduction', while
$ info yorick
has a menu without a header, while
$ info emacs
says "the emacs editor", even better than "GNU m4" which doesn't
mention if it is an editor or a language, etc.

Therefore folks should make top Info nodes with proper headers.
How about a debian Info pages policy.

-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux debian 2.4.18-k7 #1 Sun Apr 14 13:19:11 EST 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=zh_TW.Big5, LC_CTYPE=zh_TW.Big5

Versions of packages info depends on:
ii  libc6                    2.2.5-6         GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  libncurses5              5.2.20020112a-7 Shared libraries for terminal hand

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---

(this bug is about "top Info pages of different packages wildly differ".)

"How 'bout just filing wishlist bugs with patches?" sounds like a reasonable 
approach to me, thus closing this meta bugreport. Also _not_ reassigning to 
debian-policy, as there is no consensus to demand this and policy shall 
describe current best practice, which obviously doesnt exist here.


Attachment: pgpRvG0NyuuRc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

--- End Message ---

Reply to: