On 12/12/2011 5:39 PM, Peter TB Brett wrote: > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:29:57 -0500, Dan McMahill <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 12/12/2011 6:30 AM, Dan McMahill wrote: >>> On 12/10/2011 6:37 PM, Peter TB Brett wrote: >>> >>>> As a rule, we should be providing manpages for all binaries > installed >>>> in the $PATH. Currently, the following lack manpages: >>>> >>> >>>> - pads_backannotate >>>> - pcb_backannotate >>>> - refdes_renum >>>> - sw2asc >>> >>> I'll make man pages for these. >>> >> >> Couple of quick questions. >> >> 1) Do we have any sort of a man page linter that should be run? > > No, sorry. > >> 2) Some of those scripts have -V|--version options that are broken. >> They are broken because they used to work by searching inside of $0 >> (ARGV[0]) and looking for an RCS Id. Of course once we moved from cvs >> to git that stopped "working". I say "working" because it is not clear >> that this was ever the correct version to report but it was better than >> nothing. So.... do I nuke that option entirely from the scripts? I'd >> sort of rather not because it is that much less debug information that >> can go in a bug report. If I keep it, any good ideas on how to get the >> version information into shell scripts and perl programs? > > Ideally, they should output something like: > > gEDA 1.7.1 (g9e89e5c) > Copyright (C) 1998-2011 gEDA developers > This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under > certain conditions. For details, see the file `COPYING', which is > included in the gEDA distribution. > There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. > > I can't really think of a good way of getting that information into them, > though, other than sed-based substitution. :-(
I could potentially build the script either at configure time or at build time. Rename, for example, pcb_backannotate to pcb_backannotate.in and then put the info in. Something like a here document with a placeholder, @version@, in it. >> 3) Looking at some of the existing man pages (gnetlist.1 for example), >> I see a string like 1.7.1.20110619 in the header. Is there a rule for >> what should go here? > > Yes; Ales has always put the version of the latest release there, in the > form <dottedversion>.<date>. Isn't that a pain if it is put there manually? -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~geda-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~geda-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
