Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 09:50:26 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Esa A E Peuha <peuha AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of Grep 2.4 uploaded
In-Reply-To: <86p3driab60.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000130094947.17273J-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On 28 Jan 2000, Esa A E Peuha wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> writes:
> 
> > Nowadays, we do have a `man' clone that knows about the `man'
> > hierarchy.  However, if a new port would unzip the man pages into a
> > different directory, the old version of the man pages will be left
> > behind, and the user could see stale docs.  So, whenever the previous
> > port had its man pages inside `info', the new one puts them into
> > `info' as well.
> 
> Is that really an adequate reason?

It is for me.

> IMHO, the users should be adviced
> to uninstall the old version before installing the new one

They *are* advised to uninstall the old version, and yet we still have
many FAQs here that speak volumes about how well do people follow
these instructions.

> rather than
> helping them to get away with not reading the instructions. ;-)

I see it from a different perspective: the perspective of someone who
gets to answer all the FAQs when people do not follow instructions.  I
prefer a solution that works even if instructions are not followed, if
such a solution is possible.