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

Re: Removing the manpage requirement for GUI programs?

On ven., 2010-03-05 at 09:49 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@debian.org> writes:
> > On jeu., 2010-03-04 at 22:54 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > file bug reports, work with upstream to have properly maintained
> > > manpages, close the bug reports as fixed when that happens.
> >
> > My upstream position is exactly what started the thread: no need to
> > have duplicate information between --help and manpage
> Don't do that, then. A good manpage is much more than just a duplicate
> of ‘--help’, as already discussed elsewhere in this thread.

Don't do *what*? It's my upstream call (which I understand, that's all).
And in that case the manpage *is* just an (outdated) duplicate. That's
the point.
> > --help strings are easily translatable (and translated),
> I can't speak to this as I don't know the relative difficulty of
> translating manpages as compared to other text. I would think using an
> easily-edited source format like reST or DocBook would make this much
> easier for everyone, including the primary authors.

I wasn't implying manpages weren't easy to translate, I don't have
enough experience there (though reST or DocBook don't really seem to fit
well with gettext and transifex, in my case).
> > And we discussed that, and I agree with them, having manpages for
> > every tiny script running this or that will not improve documentation.
> On the contrary, the unified manpage database with every command
> documented is useful for its own sake. Also as described elsewhere in
> this thread.

We obviously disagree about what we are talking about anyway, so I'm not
sure there's a point continuing the loop :)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: