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

Re: Requirement for a “proper manpage” for every command

On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 09:04:39PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:

> The response from the maintainer (who is also the upstream author) so
> far is, essentially, “Patches welcome, but I'm not interested in
> maintaining manpages”.
> I have submitted a manpage as a patch. However, that response pretty
> much guarantees that the maintainer won't be taking the initiative to
> keep the manpage up to date. Am I right in thinking that it is
> nevertheless the maintainer's responsibility to do so?

IMO, yes.  That's part and parcel of what a package maintainer
should be doing.

> I don't like Debian policy being used as a blunt instrument, but I
> must admit my mental reaction to the maintainer's response was along
> the lines of “Too bad; in accepting the role of package maintainer,
> you accepted the ongoing task of maintaining manpages for every
> command, utility, and function in the package”.
> Wording and tone aside, is that expectation reasonable?

Again IMO, yes.  We require manual pages, and it's the maintainer's
responsibility to make sure that they are provided and up to date.
It's not like it's a major chore to write a manual page, so any
maintainer outright refusing to do so is a crap maintainer, as well
as being bloody lazy.


  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: