Re: Custom undocumented(7)s are just as bad.
- To: Seth R Arnold <sarnold@willamette.edu>
- Cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Custom undocumented(7)s are just as bad.
- From: Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 23:59:17 -0500
- Message-id: <20000201235917.A852@kitenet.net>
- Mail-followup-to: Seth R Arnold <sarnold@willamette.edu>, debian-policy@lists.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <20000130133934.D19663@willamette.edu>; from sarnold@willamette.edu on Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 01:39:34PM -0800
- References: <20000118084743.B288@debian.org> <20000120025731.B3271@resonant.org> <87oga5u5cm.fsf@glaurung.green-gryphon.com> <84ya99jykg.fsf@snoopy.apana.org.au> <20000129093354.L30262@frederick.itri.loyola.edu> <20000129105404.V579@willamette.edu> <20000130001931.F14196@usatoday.com> <20000130142122.B5231@molehole> <20000130155901.A575@usatoday.com> <20000130133934.D19663@willamette.edu>
Seth R Arnold wrote:
> On one of our web servers could be a list of binaries in the traditional
> PATH without manpages. People could sign up for working on a manpage for a
> binary. (Perhaps `executable' is the correct phrase? :)
Such a list has existed for a long time, see the lintain report pages.
--
see shy jo, in New York
Reply to: