Bug#850289: debian-policy: Patch so that there is an Example section in manual pages
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.8.0
Tags: patch
Severity: wishlist
Dear Maintainer,
As shared above it would be nice if we have Example section in
manpages. This would be especially useful for non-technical users and
a step towards making Debian a truly Universal Operating System.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (600, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500,
'testing-debug'), (1, 'experimental-debug'), (1, 'experimental'), (1,
'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 4.8.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
debian-policy depends on no packages.
debian-policy recommends no packages.
Versions of packages debian-policy suggests:
ii doc-base 0.10.7
--
Regards,
Shirish Agarwal शिरीष अग्रवाल
My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com
EB80 462B 08E1 A0DE A73A 2C2F 9F3D C7A4 E1C4 D2D8
From 540070e13ed47514742c6c434c543fadaf929578 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Shirish Agarwal <shirishag75@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 02:25:28 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] debian-policy should have an Example Section in a manpage, if
a manpage exists.
---
policy.sgml | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 06d094c..9cc2782 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -10661,6 +10661,10 @@ name ["<var>syshostname</var>"]:
</p>
<p>
+ It is also suggested that all packages should also have an EXAMPLE section which describes with syntax how the package should be used. The Example section could be optional for library packages
+ </p>
+
+ <p>
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
--
2.11.0
Reply to: