Chris:
> Update accordingly, please reivew
I think the SEE ALSO section in the attached version looks better.
Note that you forgot to alphabetize the SEE ALSO entries, which
I corrected in the attachment.
I didn't fix the below issue, though, since I'm unsure if we should
be using the word interfaces or bindings here. Could you fix this?
libatkmm, libgdkmm, libgtkmm and libpangomm provide offi-
cial C++ interface for ATK, GDK, GTK+ and Pango libraries
I'd say "provide the official C++ interfaces for the"
Also, should that be "bindings" instead of "interfaces"?
Note you use similar wording in the DESCRIPTION, so you should also
correct there.
Once that is corrected, I think it is done.
Brian
> Brian Cameron ??:
>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> These four libs are delivered in SUNWgtkmm package (pangomm will be
>>> moved out), and all
>>> belong to gtkmm project.
>>>
>> This seems a bit confusing to me since we deliver separate section 3
>> manpages for each of the atk, gdk, and gtk libraries.
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What I mean GTK+ here is the GTK+ project, I think they all listed under
>>> gtk.org. I can make it
>>> clear if needed.
>>>
>> I think "C++ interfaces for ATK, GDK, and GTK+" would be more clear.
>>
>>
>>>> The DESCRIPTION section only explains gtkmm, and not the other
>>>> libraries that you plan to shadow manpage to this one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> gtkmm is a name of the project, it includes these four libs, just like
>>> the manpage for libpango, it
>>> inclues libpango, libpangox etc. but in the Description, we only use the
>>> statement Pango.
>>>
>> Right, but with the libpango manpage the various libraries (aside from
>> libpango itself) are just backend libraries. The end user would likely
>> only ever use the libpango interfaces from their application. This is
>> probably why the libpango manpage focuses on the one library more.
>>
>> This manpage is different since the end user is likely to want to
>> write directly to each library separately.
>>
>> Also, even though ATK may be shipped with gtkmm, it really isn't a
>> part of GTK+. The ATK is an interface that is also, for example,
>> shared by Java (and perhaps KDE in the future). So it is a bit
>> misleading to make it sound like libatkmm is a GTK+ specific feature.
>> This is just an artifact of it being included in the gtkmm module.
>>
>> I think that it would be good to provide a separate paragraph for
>> each library in the DESCRIPTION section to explain each one
>> separately.
>>
>> For that matter, it wouldn't be a bad idea for the Pango manpage
>> to also be updated to provide more docs for each library.
>> This would just make the manpage a bit more clear.
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> /usr/share/doc/gtkmm-2.4 directory contains the demo sourcecode in
>>> /usr/demo/jds/bin/gtkmm, I will add
>>> it to the FILE section
>>>
>> Yes, I would also add links to any online docs for the other
>> interfaces if we don't ship installed docs on the filesystem.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/jds-review/attachments/20080804/9bde41f2/attachment.html>
