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 And in that case the manpage *is* just an (outdated) duplicate.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 :) Cheers, -- Yves-Alexis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part