On 20/05/12(Sun) 13:40, Kenneth R Westerback wrote: > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 10:36:16AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > On 20/05/12(Sun) 11:26, Kenneth R Westerback wrote: > > > > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 04:46:40PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > > > > Diff below makes eject(1) use cd0 as default device like cdio(1) does. > > > > > > > > > > I'm aware this is an arbitrary choice but I see no drawback in having > > > > > a default device to eject and this behavior is coherent with > > > > > cdio(1)'s. > > > > > > > > > > Ok? > > > > > > > > Then again, actual testing shows that I the man page is unclear > > > > and a bare 'eject' does not eject st0. I'd rather have eject > > > > use 'st0' as the default device since it is a varient of the 'mt' > > > > command. > > > > > > Forget about the default, as I said it was an arbitrary choice and there > > > is no consensus. > > > > > > > This could be made more clear on the man page. :-) > > > > > > Actually I see no reason at all to mention that eject(1) is a variant of > > > mt(1) because it is not limited to tapes and the manual is confusing. > > > > > > So I've split the manual in two, does it look clearer to you? > > > > I don't see the point of splitting the manual page. > > > > What problem are you trying to solve? > > > > The idea is that "eject" is "mt offl", and has all the same behaviours, > > and everything else in the manual page is interesting to read for both > > of them. > > I agree. I don't see any point in splitting them. The source code and > executables are identical with very small difference in option handling, > so it makes more sense to me to keep them together.
You're right, forget my diffs. Martin
