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).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to