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

Re: Custom undocumented(7)s are just as bad.



On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 11:01:30PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> > requirement to have a manpage for every binary.  In some larger
> > packages, it's pretty difficult to find out what some of those
> > binaries do, except that to say that if you take one of them out of
> > the path, something will break.  They don't always have online help.
> 
>  I would expect that a mantainer have a little knowledge of his package. If

    The point was that it takes more than a "little knowledge" in the
case of large packages.  

> a binary is not meant to be called by the user, it is a bug to have it in
> the PATH.

    Yup.  It probably is.  In some cases, a permanent bug, since sheer
logistics are going to prevent some things from being fixed.  So do
you prefer that instead of having a bug filed for a missing manpage,
you have a bug filed for a possibly incorrect location?  Because
there's going to be an outstanding report either way.

=========================================================================
Zed Pobre <zed@va.debian.org> | PGP key on servers, fingerprint on finger
=========================================================================

Attachment: pgpRa0qTPANtj.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: