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

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks



hi,

On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:53:35PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> --- policy.sgml.orig	2002-11-12 12:50:40.000000000 +0000
> +++ policy.sgml	2002-11-12 12:51:30.000000000 +0000
> @@ -7485,22 +7485,22 @@
>  	  page included as well.
>  	</p>
>  
> -	<p>
> -	  If no manual page is available for a particular program,
> -	  utility, function or configuration file and this is reported
> -	  as a bug to the Debian Bug Tracking System, a symbolic link
> -	  from the requested manual page to the <manref
> -	  name="undocumented" section="7"> manual page may be
> -	  provided.  This symbolic link can be created from
> -	  <file>debian/rules</file> like this:
> -	  <example compact="compact">
> -ln -s ../man7/undocumented.7.gz \
> -  debian/tmp/usr/share/man/man[1-9]/<var>requested_manpage</var>.[1-9].gz
> -	  </example>
> -	  This manpage claims that the lack of a manpage has been
> -	  reported as a bug, so you may only do this if it really has
> -	  (you can report it yourself, if you like).  Do not close the
> -	  bug report until a proper manpage is available.</p>
> +        <p>
> +	  There should be a manual page at least for every program.  If
> +	  no manual page is available, this is considered as a bug and
> +	  should be reported to the Debian Bug Tracking System (the
> +	  maintainer of the package is allowed to write this bug report
> +	  himself, too).  Do not close the bug report until a proper
> +	  manpage is available.<footnote>
> +	    <p>
> +	      It is not very hard to write a man page. See the <url
> +	      id="http://www.schweikhardt.net/man_page_howto.html";
> +	      name="Man-Page-HOWTO">, <tt>man(7)</tt>, the examples
> +	      created by <tt>debmake</tt> or <tt>dh_make</tt>, or the
> +	      directory <file>/usr/share/doc/man-db/examples</file>.
> +	    </p>
> +	  </footnote>
> +	</p>
>  
>  	<p>
>  	  You may forward a complaint about a missing manpage to the

I second this :).

so long
Othmar



Reply to: