Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/01/08/18:05:43
On 8 Jan 2002 at 22:03, Robert Collins wrote:
> Given that info documentation can be converted to manpages, I see little
> reason to maintain man pages separately.
Over the course of using cygwin in the past, `info' wouldn't always work
for me. Maybe some flag or .rc file hadn't been set, whatever. It does work
now.
Just because something "can" (in abstract principle) be done, doesn't
always mean *everyone* currently "can" or (more to the point) "knows how".
That's the whole point of binary distros of any[open-source]thing, is it
not? So that people can focus on what they are most interested in
developing or using?
To re-shift the discussion to another perspective, i suppose what interests
me is to know how to know how current the manpages *as installed by a
cygwin package* (as set up by "setup" in the cases where they are, which is
frequent) are, relative to the version of the tool itself. And as I
mentioned, there's the direct (albeit laborious) way, checking the manpages
(and/or filestamps of their files) individually; might there be a more
general policy we could be informed about, that would hold true most of the
time, regarding how out-of-date the manpages might be? Someone reading this
might know.
Thanks,
Soren Andersen
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -