Re: umask has no man page?
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:38:40AM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> My apologies,
> your question(s?) were unclear and obfuscated with false
> assertions.
>
> Hopefully a "beginner" would start at the start, i.e.:-
> help help
> info info
> man man
So you've never met a beginner and forgotten what it's like to be one?
Thanks.
> > You don't _type_ pam_umask.
>
> Do you believe you have psychic powers?
You do type "pam_umask" alone at a command line? Why?
> The answer to the question*s* you might have asked, and some of the
> questions they may have raised if you'd followed the guide on how to ask
> smart questions is:-
>
> Q. Why is there no man page for BASH built-ins?
I don't need to ask this because I know the answer. In fact, I explicitly
stated the answer in my message, making this utterly nonsensical.
> Q. Does Debian policy require man pages for every package?
>
> A. No (it's recommended only) ...
Fair enough. I misremembered.
> NOTE: that built-in commands are *not* packages.
Again, you are telling me something I wrote in the threadstarter as if it is
somehow going to make me appear (or feel?) foolish. Not so much.
> Q. But it confuses me that there is a man page for umask that is not the
> BASH built-in, yet there is no man page for the BASH builtin umask. Why
> is that?
Again, I made it clear in the threadstarter that I did understand, but
disagreed with the current arrangement. You may claim and I wrote unclearly,
but you are seemingly alone in failing to understandwhat I wrote. It's
almost as if you read unclearly.
--
Carl Fink nitpicking@nitpicking.com
Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
Reply to: