X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:32:45 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Looking for man pages
Message-ID: <20070628193245.GA2310@ednor>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <FF8482A96323694490C194BABEAC24A0011F1C40@Email.cbord.com> <20070628180239.GJ30973@calimero.vinschen.de> <FF8482A96323694490C194BABEAC24A0011F1DFF@Email.cbord.com> <46840973.BD68B5A4@dessent.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46840973.BD68B5A4@dessent.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie.com@cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com

On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:18:11PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Bob McConnell wrote:
>
>> I can't find any links to anything other than one sample man page. We
>> already have copies of that spec, although I have never had any cause to
>> read it.
>
>Wha?  The SUSv3 is extremely thorough, consisting of many hundreds of
>man pages:
><http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/contents.html>.
>
>> What steps are involved to convert those pages?
>
>The problem with lifting man pages from Linux is that those man pages
>document ... Linux.  Not Cygwin.
>
>There are a number of areas where either Cygwin doesn't implement some
>extension that glibc provides, or Cygwin implements something in a
>different way, or Cygwin doesn't support particular options of a given
>API.  Just transplanting these linux-specific docs would utterly confuse
>people because they'd be incorrect.  So what really needs to happen is
>that someone who is familiar with the internals of Cygwin needs to adapt
>the linux documentation so that it reflects the reality of Cygwin, and
>*that* is why it's not been done.  It's not just a matter of format
>conversion or packaging.

I wonder if having slightly inaccurate manpages is better or worse than
having no manpages at all though.  I really don't know which is more
desirable.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

