On Sun, Nov 28, 1999 at 07:16:19PM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Mays) writes: > > > > Policy says that any binary must come with a manpage. I would like to > > > have the same for packages. > > > > For every package? You must be kidding!! > > > > > I just looked for a parser generator that outputs C++ code and found > > > pccts. After installation I tried "man pccts", but that failed. > > > /usr/doc/pccts doesn't contain examples, so how do I use the thing? > > > > > pccts in fact contains several binaries, but non is called pccts. The > > > main binary is called antlr and has a good manpage. > > > > > My suggestion is now, that "man pccts" should either point to the > > > main binaries manpage or show a page that gives a one-line description > > > of the binaries of the package or one that has just relevant "see > > > also: xxx" entries. > > > > > What do you think? > > > > While I agree that it is probably a good idea for large packages, with > > many binaries, to provide such a man page (in section 7, of course), it > > makes no sense for packages in general. Personally, I think that such > > policy would be a waste of our developers' time to write these pages and > > a waste of disk space to store them. > > In the case of most packages the main binary will be named just like > the package, like bash, zsh, gcc,... Of cause I don´t want another > manpage for the gcc package, the one for gcc is enough. > > It should be rare that a package doesn´t contain a binary thats called > after the package and only for those a seperate manpage or a link to > the main programs manpage should be provided.
What about docs ? What about themes ? Do you want them to contain manpage ?
