Re: omg : man lb_config :)
On 12 October 2010 11:20, Ben Armstrong <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 12/10/10 06:09 AM, Vitaly wrote:
>> Okay, I admit bad joke with a man lh config.
>> However, this does not eliminate the illogical and not intuitive man
>> lh_config and man lb_config
>> And so carefully did not want to see here.
>> As an example
>> gedit -> g_edit -> g edit -> s edit
>> and man s_edit
>> would be very logical to the precepts of your mom?
> If you are saying you don't like (or understand) the rename of the
> command multiple times, sorry, that's just one of the costs of development.
> As a developer, an idea you at first thought was good (filling /usr/bin
> with a whole bunch of helpers which, in practice, are not called by the
> user individually) later turns out to be bad (i.e. pollution of /usr/bin
> is not very kind!) At around the same time you decide that the original
> name of the thing you wrote, live-helper, (which undoubtedly was
> influenced by the prior existence of 'debhelper' and you can see
> parallels in the structure,) is no longer really descriptive of the
> purpose of the software. Helper? Helper for what? So you decide to
> rename it to live-build, because it's the part of the software that
> *builds* the live image. Much clearer now, yes?
> So what would you ask us to do? Get all of our ideas perfect the very
> first time?
I would like to add that 'man lb config' displays the man page for
'lb' which refers to 'live-build' which refers to the subcommand man
pages such as lb_config.
There is an issue with lb(1) describing lh(1) which should be fixed if
it was not already but other than that the man pages are pretty good.