Re: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:14:18PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@tardis.ed.ac.uk> writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 03:32:35PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
>
> > > Can you provide any positive arguments in *favor* of undocumented(7)?
>
> > One thing undocumented(7) does is suggest some other ways to find
> > documentation.
>
> So could a two-line man page:
>
> NAME
> foo is a thingummy.
>
> DESCRIPTION
> foo is documented in /usr/doc/foo/ugly.html
>
> In fact, this has the huge advantage of telling you where the
> documentation for foo *is*, rather than merely listing all the places
> where it *might* reside.
That would indeed be more useful. IMO, the undocumented(7) page simply is a
simple way to get around the problem to make a man page. If we just removed
it, developers would have to create at least a minimal page to get around
the lintian nagging, which would be much further in the direction of what
the policy intends that the solution we have right now.
--
-- ______________________________________________________
-- JESUS CHRIST IS LORD!
-- To Him, even that machine here has to obey...
--
-- _________________________________Norbert "Nobbi" Nemec
-- Hindenburgstr. 44 ... D-91054 Erlangen ... Germany
-- eMail: <nobbi@cheerful.com> Tel: +49-(0)-911-204180
Reply to: