On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 03:29:02PM +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > [runme patch proposal for patch-o-matic dealing with the man page attached] > > Hervé Eychenne wrote: > > > - TTL target had nothing to do here, as it is in patch-o-matic. > > Deleted for coherence. Maybe we could have a special manpage for > > extra extensions, but as they are already documented in the > > Netfilter Extensions HOWTO, it would seem to appear as a > > duplicated effort. > > I just added a note on the existence of this HOWTO.
> May I propose we add manpage information to patch-o-matic. It should be > possible to use the same kind of magics as for Configure.help.. > > patchname.man[-X] > > Where the first line is the existing line where the new documentation should > be inserted. > > Having the patch-o-matic extension you have applied documented in the > iptables manpage you have installed as part of the same build process has > great value I think. > > The icky part, shared with .userspace, is that once you have applied pathes > from your iptables source you will need to clean it up before patching > another kernel source tree.. If we really want documentation for the extensions available as a manpage, I'm not sure it should belong to the main iptables(8) manpage. I'd rather have a separate manpage in order to avoid confusion (having a different iptables manpage on every machine on earth doesn't look very appealing from this point of view). But if one day we have an iptables_extensions(8) manpage, there should be only one source of documentation, I think. There's already SGML. Maybe it's the most generic format. So in theory every extension in p-o-m should have a .sgml file, describing the option. Each .sgml file should be used for the generation of the HOWTO and the manpage, etc. I hate duplicated information. Maybe William Stearns will have some good idea about that, considering his work on http://www.stearns.org/pomlist/pom-output.html ? Herve -- _ (°= Hervé Eychenne //) v_/_ WallFire project: http://www.wallfire.org/
