On 06.05.2020 14:48, Robert Elz wrote: > Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 11:28:42 +0200 > From: Kamil Rytarowski <n...@gmx.com> > Message-ID: <e092df35-27c5-8528-add7-b76c03fab...@gmx.com> > > > | While there, we have got a long standing issue with wait.1 man page, > > Huh! I had no idea any such thing existed... (do you know of any > more bizarre ones like that?) >
I don't know other cases. > | it should be either removed (as the wait(1) program is gone) or adapted > | with the reality of being a builtin. > > Yes, it should. Was there ever a wait(1) program? POSIX says there > should be (along with cd umask ulimit ...) but the general feeling here > is that that's just plain stupid... (and I agree). > > > I'm not going to right now, as I'm not sure which is the right path > to take - there has been (in the past) some discussion about making > man pages for all of the sh builtins (so one doesn't need to know the > trick of how to find their doc in the sh(1) manpage easily - no idea how > it is done with csh as I stopped using that decades ago). > > If we decide to do that, then fixing that page to be rational would > be the right thing to do, if not, then deleting it. > > I'll see if I can find out what the likely outcome of a discussion of > that will be (hopefully avoiding actually needing the discission again). > If there's a resolution, I will make it happen. > Possibly, wait.1 shall clearly note that this is a shell builtin and it would be enough. cd.1 notes this indirectly. > kre > > ps: this one is not quite so important as the librumpuser issue... > And wrt that, I am not (I hope) a total cretin ... I would not have > objected if you had removed the (now) useless variable along with that > one line of code... (but what you did is fine). > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
