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