Re: Do have programs have poor documentation?
On Sun 01 Jan 2017 at 20:00:56 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 01 January 2017 14:46:30 Thomas Schmitt wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > I cannot recall ever seeing a more complete information about
> > > anything I ever looked up, telling me something that wasn't in the
> > > man page.
> >
> > Compare
> > man ls
> > and
> > info ls
> >
> > The chapter of ls in coreutils.info is much longer than the man page.
> > It gives some background information for the options which are grouped
> > by * Which files are listed::
> > * What information is listed::
> > * Sorting the output::
> > * Details about version sort::
> > * General output formatting::
> > * Formatting file timestamps::
> > * Formatting the file names::
>
> I believe that is all in my man page on ls, its quite lengthy here on
> this wheezy system. If not, then its the exception that proves the rule.
Have you actually looked?
$ man ls | wc -l
223
$ info --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes ls | wc -l
853
$
Where in man ls does this information come, just to pick on one small
aspect that sometimes pops up on debian-user:
Following the file mode bits is a single character that specifies
whether an alternate access method such as an access control list
applies to the file. When the character following the file mode
bits is a space, there is no alternate access method. When it is
a printing character, then there is such a method.
GNU `ls' uses a `.' character to indicate a file with an SELinux
security context, but no other alternate access method.
A file with any other combination of alternate access methods is
marked with a `+' character.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: