DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32201] - please, provide a manpage

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32201


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Priority|P1  |P5
Version|0.20.5  |1.0dev




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2004-11-17 23:45 ---
Hi Arnaud,

Good news with a 'but':
The option of adding a manpage has been discussed on fop-dev, and it seems like 
there's a good chance that one could be added in the future, although...
If it is, it will be so for the next release at the earliest (no prognosis WRT 
a date so far)

In any case, your suggestion is certainly appreciated (as is the attached 
example, which will serve us well).

Thanks for the input!

Greetz,

Andreas

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

RE: FW: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32201] - please, provide a manpage

[Andreas L. Delmelle]

> -Original Message-
> From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --- "Andreas L. Delmelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I'm not too fond of this type of arguments:
> > everybody/nobody else is doing it, so why
> > shouldn't/should we...
>
> Hey, I like that argument!  For example, no other
> Apache project is implementing the XSL standard, so
> why should we?!?  Oh...on second thought, I see your
> point. ;)

:)
Yeah, OT:
My point is actually that it's exactly that kind of thinking that leads
people to all sorts of herd-mentality crap, conformist BS and the likes
(if you're not too sensitive, not too easily offended, see some examples way
below)

In short:
Nobody seems to think things through anymore, so why should I bother?

> But if the developers of the other teams involved are
> quite experienced and preside over successful
> projects, I frequently defer to their judgment.

I won't argue with this. Just use with caution: sometimes people can be
'blinded by experience' --in the sense of: being so used to doing things the
wrong way, and actually continually succeeding in that fashion, that they
are 'shaped' to never even consider what is actually sane.

> +0, if you wish to do it. -0 with a manpage.  But I
> still think our future will be with Docbook
> documentation.

Well, if we decide on doing so, it's certainly not top-priority ATM.
Let's get this baby walking first, before we buy it a pair of hiking-boots.

> Personally speaking, it has been wonderful during my day job
> (which is a lovely 2000 miles away right now ;), our technical
> writer picked it up very quickly and has been very efficient/quick
> with it.  Even prefers it over Microsoft Word.

*Even* ... Microsoft Word (--which 'everybody' uses?)

'Nuff said. :))

Greetz,

Andreas

Everybody is drinking twenty bottles and mixing it with a cocktail of
illegal drugs, so I should too...
Everybody goes to a shrink to whine about their miserable excuse for a  life
and get a prescription for anti-depressants, so maybe I should try it too...
Everybody is blowing up buildings and killing innocent people to get their
point across, so I should definitely try it too...
Everybody is wearing a nazi t-shirt and shaving their head, so I should
too...
Damn', now they're all settling down, all wearing a suit-and-tie, all
venting their aggression caused by the frustration of having to work for a
boss who's an utter nitwit and not being able to speak up about it --since
nobody does that-- in the weekend, when bashing some cops if their favourite
soccer-team loses (or wins, no matter)... well, here I go then :)
Everybody has their own crappy, amateuristic, exhibitionist website with
links to all sorts of boring stuff, pictures of their ugly self, wife and
mongrel-dog, so I should too...
Hmm... come to think of it, since everybody seems to have a mongrel-dog, I
should get one too --As for the ugly wife? Well, it's an option to be
considered. At least, so everybody keeps saying...

RE: FW: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32201] - please, provide a manpage

[Glen Mazza]

Great!  Thanks for the info.

Glen

--- "Christian Z." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> > > Unless Docbook can generate manpages, we would
> also
> > > have the problem of needing to maintain two sets
> of
> > > documentation (online and manpage) to say the
> same
> > > thing.
> 
> Though never generated a man page on my own, DocBook
> seems to do it.
> Have a look at:
> 
>
http://docbook.org/tdg/en/html/ch02.html#making-refentry
> 
> http://linuxwiki.de/ManPage states that you need the
> "docbook-utils
> (docbook2man)" to generate a man page out of
> docbook.
> 
> Regards,
> Christian Z.
> 
> 

RE: FW: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32201] - please, provide a manpage

[Christian Z.]

> > Unless Docbook can generate manpages, we would also
> > have the problem of needing to maintain two sets of
> > documentation (online and manpage) to say the same
> > thing.

Though never generated a man page on my own, DocBook seems to do it.
Have a look at:

http://docbook.org/tdg/en/html/ch02.html#making-refentry

http://linuxwiki.de/ManPage states that you need the "docbook-utils
(docbook2man)" to generate a man page out of docbook.

Regards,
Christian Z.

RE: FW: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32201] - please, provide a manpage

[Glen Mazza]

--- "Andreas L. Delmelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> 
> > My thinking is that since Xalan, Xerces, Cocoon,
> > Batik, etc., don't offer them, then we shouldn't
> > either.
> 
> Yuck! I'm not too fond of this type of arguments:
> everybody/nobody else is
> doing it, so why shouldn't/should we... This is no
> reason not to.
> 

Hey, I like that argument!  For example, no other
Apache project is implementing the XSL standard, so
why should we?!?  Oh...on second thought, I see your
point. ;)

But if the developers of the other teams involved are
quite experienced and preside over successful
projects, I frequently defer to their judgment.  


> > Another issue is this is the first request
> > I've heard for it in 20 months in being on the
> team.
> 
> This I definitely agree with, which is exactly why
> it caught my eye.
> 
> > All unix folk so far haven't minded using the
> website,
> > and failing that, we have already pretty good CLI
> > instructions.
> 
> True, but then again, most apps having a manpage
> also have a '--help' CL
> switch...
> 

+0, if you wish to do it. -0 with a manpage.  But I
still think our future will be with Docbook
documentation.  Personally speaking, it has been
wonderful during my day job (which is a lovely 2000
miles away right now ;), our technical writer picked
it up very quickly and has been very efficient/quick
with it.  Even prefers it over Microsoft Word.

Glen

RE: FW: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32201] - please, provide a manpage

[Andreas L. Delmelle]

> -Original Message-
> From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Manpages are usually for C-language

Correct so far.

> Unix-specific applications, no?

Hmm... The manpages themselves obviously are Unix-specific, but I'm not so
sure whether the applications always are or necessarily have to be... That
is not 'carved in stone'.
In a way I agree though, that it would come down to the same thing as adding
a Windows-specific help file.

> I'm not sure of the future they
> have compared to website documentation, Docbook, etc.
>
> Unless Docbook can generate manpages, we would also
> have the problem of needing to maintain two sets of
> documentation (online and manpage) to say the same
> thing.
>

Docbook in itself? Maybe not, but running the same Docbook XML through a
different stylesheet outputting a text-file would in this case be an option.

> My thinking is that since Xalan, Xerces, Cocoon,
> Batik, etc., don't offer them, then we shouldn't
> either.

Yuck! I'm not too fond of this type of arguments: everybody/nobody else is
doing it, so why shouldn't/should we... This is no reason not to.

> Another issue is this is the first request
> I've heard for it in 20 months in being on the team.

This I definitely agree with, which is exactly why it caught my eye.

> All unix folk so far haven't minded using the website,
> and failing that, we have already pretty good CLI
> instructions.

True, but then again, most apps having a manpage also have a '--help' CL
switch...


Greetz,

Andreas

Re: FW: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32201] - please, provide a manpage

[Glen Mazza]

Manpages are usually for C-language Unix-specific
applications, no?  I'm not sure of the future they
have compared to website documentation, Docbook, etc.

Unless Docbook can generate manpages, we would also
have the problem of needing to maintain two sets of
documentation (online and manpage) to say the same
thing.

My thinking is that since Xalan, Xerces, Cocoon,
Batik, etc., don't offer them, then we shouldn't
either.  Another issue is this is the first request
I've heard for it in 20 months in being on the team. 
All unix folk so far haven't minded using the website,
and failing that, we have already pretty good CLI
instructions.

Glen



--- "Andreas L. Delmelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> 
> Team,
> 
> What do others think of this question?
> 
> If all our *nix users would benefit from it, I'm all
> for (--but I'm not all
> too familiar with the syntax of manpages... yet ;-)
> Is the format generic
> enough to be supported by all *nix platforms, or
> would we have to write
> separate ones for Debian / RedHat / OS X etc.)
> 
> Downside of course is yet another piece of the
> package to maintain (albeit
> maybe a small one)
> 
> 
> Greetz,
> 
> Andreas
> 
> 

RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32201] - please, provide a manpage

[Andreas L. Delmelle]

> -Original Message-
> From: Clay Leeds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

> When [argh!] the site goes live [argh!] it will be there. ([argh] still
> struggling with Compliance Page and a couple of other 'little'
> problems...). But I've still got a cheery attitude about it!
>

Well, FWIW, from what you've shown us so far, I totally concur with Victor:
"Smokin' Hot!", he said (if I recall correctly).

Nice work! Certainly something to look forward to.

Greetz,

Andreas

Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32201] - please, provide a manpage

[Clay Leeds]

On Nov 15, 2004, at 2:40 PM, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
Thank you, Maestro! (saved me the time to look them up, hehe ;-) )
Glad to be of service...
It really sounds like a good 'marketing' idea to me (if this would
facilitate bundling with the different Unix-based packages)
Me too. As they say in show business... any news--even bad news--is 
good publicity. (not that I actually believe that or am in 
showbusiness).

BTW: I have one for you to add to the resources page (PDF 
post-processing
related)
http://www.accesspdf.com/pdftk/

Seems a very nifty tool.
When [argh!] the site goes live [argh!] it will be there. ([argh] still 
struggling with Compliance Page and a couple of other 'little' 
problems...). But I've still got a cheery attitude about it!

Web Maestro Clay
--
Clay Leeds - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Webmaster/Developer - Medata, Inc. - 
PGP Public Key: 

RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32201] - please, provide a manpage

[Andreas L. Delmelle]

> -Original Message-
> From: Clay Leeds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> FWIW, here're a couple of Man Page HowTos:

Thank you, Maestro! (saved me the time to look them up, hehe ;-) )

It really sounds like a good 'marketing' idea to me (if this would
facilitate bundling with the different Unix-based packages)

BTW: I have one for you to add to the resources page (PDF post-processing
related)
http://www.accesspdf.com/pdftk/

Seems a very nifty tool.


Greetz,

Andreas

Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32201] - please, provide a manpage

[Clay Leeds]

On Nov 15, 2004, at 2:14 PM, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
Team,
What do others think of this question?
If all our *nix users would benefit from it, I'm all for (--but I'm 
not all
too familiar with the syntax of manpages... yet ;-) Is the format 
generic
enough to be supported by all *nix platforms, or would we have to write
separate ones for Debian / RedHat / OS X etc.)

Downside of course is yet another piece of the package to maintain 
(albeit
maybe a small one)

Greetz,
Andreas
+1 I'm all about documentation. I don't know if there are multiple 
formats though.

FWIW, here're a couple of Man Page HowTos:
Nicely written w/ a 'glossary' of formatting code:
http://www.schweikhardt.net/man_page_howto.html
Briefer HowTo:
http://www.cs.hmc.edu/tech_docs/qref/writing_man_pages.html
man man:
http://www.rt.com/man/man.7.html
Web Maestro Clay
--
Clay Leeds - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Webmaster/Developer - Medata, Inc. - 
PGP Public Key: 

FW: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32201] - please, provide a manpage

[Andreas L. Delmelle]

Team,

What do others think of this question?

If all our *nix users would benefit from it, I'm all for (--but I'm not all
too familiar with the syntax of manpages... yet ;-) Is the format generic
enough to be supported by all *nix platforms, or would we have to write
separate ones for Debian / RedHat / OS X etc.)

Downside of course is yet another piece of the package to maintain (albeit
maybe a small one)


Greetz,

Andreas

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32201] - please, provide a manpage

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32201





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2004-11-15 14:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=13465)
 --> (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13465&action=view)
gzipped manpage from Debian


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32201] - please, provide a manpage

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32201


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Severity|minor   |enhancement
 Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
   Priority||P1
 Resolution|INVALID |
Summary|manpage improperly formatted|please, provide a manpage




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2004-11-15 14:49 ---
sorry, my fault, the manpage is Debian specific. I would be cool if you provide 
one.

I'll attach one but it's badly formatted

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.