Chris: > These four libs are delivered with SUNWgtkmm, they are missing manpage > originally. Attached are the manpage for them.
We have a separate manpage for libgiomm, but we lump all the other "mm" interfaces into a single manpage. This seems a bit odd. Shouldn't we either have separate manpages for them all or a single manpage with shadow manpages? The NAME says: C++ interface for GTK+ However, this manpage seems to be intended to be a shadow manpage for libatkmm, libgdkmm, etc. also? So just saying "for GTK+" doesn't seem right. The DESCRIPTION section only explains gtkmm, and not the other libraries that you plan to shadow manpage to this one. You list libpango-1.4 manpage in the DESCRIPTION but you list "libpangomm-1.4" in the FILES section. This seems an error. The "SEE ALSO" section should probably refer to the libatk-1.0, libgdk_pixbuf-2.0, libgdk_pixbuf_xlib-2.0 manpages if the pixbuf interfaces are also in these libraries? Are they? Would be good to reference the libgiomm-2.4.3 and libglibmm-2.4.3 manpages in the "SEE ALSO" section, I think. The manpages referenced should also be updated to reference their corresponding "mm" manpage, so libatk-1.0 should refer to the libatkmm-1.6 manpage. There seems to be a /usr/share/doc/gtkmm-2.4 directory, but this doesn't seem referenced in the FILE section as a documentation reference. Why don't the other interfaces have docs installed to /usr/share/doc? Even if we don't install docs, we probably should provide online doc links for each interface. I notice a /usr/share/doc/cairomm directory. Should we also have a manpage for this? Brian
