Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/01/08/18:13:24
----- Original Message -----
From: "Soren Andersen" <soren_andersen AT speedymail DOT org>
> 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.
Yes, I know. Remember that I'm writing my emails in the context of what
has been fixed. info is a known previous issue, and the packaging
guidelines explicitly mention handling of info pages.
> 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?
Do you want a philsophical discussion on the english language? I presume
you simply missed the point of my comment. Packages such as bash
(picking one at random) have 'up to date' manpages. I believe (haven't
checked the Makefile) they achieve this by virtue of converting their
info documentation to man pages, not by manually updating the man pages.
So it doesn't matter if everyone can. It matters if the package
maintainers can. It doesn't matter if only the upstream package
developers know how, their makefiles do it for the package maintainers
(most of the time).
> 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 time, regarding how out-of-date the manpages might be?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.
There is no policy regarding manpages for packages in the cygwin net
distribution at this point in time. Common sense prevails.
Rob
--
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 -