Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
retitle 45406 [REJECTED] Config files must have manpages
Bug#45406: [REJECTED] Config files must have manpages
Changed Bug title.
(By the way, that Bug is currently marked as done.)
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need
On 18-Sep-99, 23:23 (CDT), Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 01:23:53PM -0700, Seth R Arnold wrote:
(Actually, if there is any easy way to use the debian package
management system to find out this info, I suppose that would make me
more than happy...)
Sadly,
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 01:23:53PM -0700, Seth R Arnold wrote:
There have been several times when I see a file laying around in my
filesystem, and I don't know what it is for. A man on that filename produces
nothing, which is a bit annoying; then I do not know what uses that file,
etc.
Could
No I don't think that it's good idea. There's no point adding a bunch of
undocumented symlink to all missing man page for configuration file. :-)
I agree that having a man page for the configuration file is good but I
don't want to force Debian developers to write man page for each
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 06:26:53PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 02:32:09PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
Should be add `intended for direct user modification'? Are there
configfiles that are `internal' and should be allowed to remain
undocumented?
Yes there are
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 11:59:27AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Should be add `intended for direct user modification'? Are there
configfiles that are `internal' and should be allowed to remain
undocumented?
Yes there are some such config files. I believe tetex has one, for
Nicol s Lichtmaier wrote:
Having a manpage is a nicer and cleaner solution IMO. There's a whole man
section (5) for that.
A sysadmin could delete the comments; he could choose to not upgrade the
file (when asked by dpkg) and have incorrect docs.. but the manpage will be
there.
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:10:42AM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
Most configuration files have manpages, but not all. It would be useful
if every config file (intended to be edited) would be forced to be
documented in a manpage.
What is the actual change of wording you propose for policy?
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 11:36:06AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
Nicol s Lichtmaier wrote:
Having a manpage is a nicer and cleaner solution IMO. There's a whole man
section (5) for that.
A sysadmin could delete the comments; he could choose to not upgrade the
file (when asked by
Le Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:10:42AM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier écrivait:
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Version: 3.0.1.1
Most configuration files have manpages, but not all. It would be useful
if every config file (intended to be edited) would be forced to be
documented in a
Having a manpage is a nicer and cleaner solution IMO. There's a whole
man
section (5) for that.
A sysadmin could delete the comments; he could choose to not upgrade the
file (when asked by dpkg) and have incorrect docs.. but the manpage will
be
there.
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:18:40PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Le Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:10:42AM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier écrivait:
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Version: 3.0.1.1
Most configuration files have manpages, but not all. It would be useful
if every config
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:10:42AM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier écrivait:
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Version: 3.0.1.1
Most configuration files have manpages, but not all. It would be useful
if every config file (intended to be
Le Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 01:23:53PM -0700, Seth R Arnold écrivait:
How would you feel about a symlink to the manpage of the program that uses
the conf file, if no manpage specific to that conf file is supplied?
Symlinks should be easy to do for maintainers..
That is acceptable.
Cheers,
--
14 matches
Mail list logo
