On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 10:36:16AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > On 20/05/12(Sun) 11:26, Kenneth R Westerback wrote: > > > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 04:46:40PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > > > Diff below makes eject(1) use cd0 as default device like cdio(1) does. > > > > > > > > I'm aware this is an arbitrary choice but I see no drawback in having > > > > a default device to eject and this behavior is coherent with cdio(1)'s. > > > > > > > > Ok? > > > > > > Then again, actual testing shows that I the man page is unclear > > > and a bare 'eject' does not eject st0. I'd rather have eject > > > use 'st0' as the default device since it is a varient of the 'mt' > > > command. > > > > Forget about the default, as I said it was an arbitrary choice and there > > is no consensus. > > > > > This could be made more clear on the man page. :-) > > > > Actually I see no reason at all to mention that eject(1) is a variant of > > mt(1) because it is not limited to tapes and the manual is confusing. > > > > So I've split the manual in two, does it look clearer to you? > > I don't see the point of splitting the manual page. > > What problem are you trying to solve? > > The idea is that "eject" is "mt offl", and has all the same behaviours, > and everything else in the manual page is interesting to read for both > of them.
I agree. I don't see any point in splitting them. The source code and executables are identical with very small difference in option handling, so it makes more sense to me to keep them together. .... Ken
