On 04/26/10 01:28 PM, Stephen Hahn wrote:
In between one meeting and another, I've been making slow progress on
verexec(1). I've published draft manual pages at
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~sch/verexec-docs
for review prior to creating an ARC fast track. I decided we should
probably document isaexec(1) as part of this case, as we haven't
yet developed a superior replacement for ISA-based command dispatch.
Comments on both or either are welcomed.
verexec-docs/isaexec.1:
line 27: shouldn't that be "i86" directories? (e.g. /usr/bin/i86/) ?
Or is that just a somewhat silly practice that's in current use?
(I'm assuming a directory named i386 would work, we just don't
appear to use that.)
lines 49-50: it seems weird to wrap attributes that way given that so
many other lines are wrapped at col 74, etc. there's also a double
space after 'the'
line 69: s/mention/state/ ?
verexec-docs/verexec.1:
line 24: s/examine./examined./
lines 37-42: To avoid ambiguity, should whole number versions be
prohibited? For example, two entries named "1" and "1.0"? At
the very least, it seems like it should be discouraged.
line 76ff: none of the path attributes should have the leading '/'
(although actions strip these automatically so it doesn't
actually matter)
lines 79, 85, 98: trailing / on pkg name
line 96: s/32-bit/32- / for consistency with isaexec text?
lines 126-127: it seems weird to wrap attributes that way given that
so many other lines are wrapped at col 76, etc. there's also a
double space after 'the'
Cheers,
-Shawn
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
