* Cameron Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-04 01:02]:
> On my systems I frequently have several mutts installed.
> Each has its own manual page because each has its own install tree.
> The /usr/local/bin/mutt is a symlink to the appropriate mutt
> binary in its respective tree, and so is the manual entry.
> Users wanting the nondefault mutt put /opt/mutt-version/bin
> in their PATH and /opt/mutt-version/man in their MANPATH.
Users like history majors and non-cs minors never edit
their PATH because they no freakin' clue about this.
> And lo, they get matching binaries and manuals.
> This is not hard. It's almost trivially easy.
come over here - there are 30,000 users on this system whom you
can teach about shells, PATHs, editors and editing, and generally
shooting yourself in the foot. (no, sorry, no payment for that.)
> Ask yourselves: _why_ do you have multiple mutt binaries?
> Because they have _different_ behaviours!
> And so the should have different manual entries.
let's see - i need a different shell setup for each
of my mutt binaries, and for each of the systems.
now, if i follow this for every program i have..
that would be.. *punch* *punch* *punch*
something above a thousand different versions.
just *why* do i *still* think this is a silly idea?
Sven [wondering what package maintainers think about this idea.
can you say "dependecy"? well - i thought you could!]
