On Monday, February 6, 2006 2:59 pm, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be easier for you to keep them up to date if sections 2,
> > 4, and parts of 5 were included in the kernel source tree?
> > Documentation updates could be enforced as part of the patch
> > process--all you'd have to do is NAK patches that modified userland
> > interfaces if they didn't contain documentation updates (and I'm
> > sure others would help you with that task).
>
> Life is not so simple, as I think we discussed when you made
> a similar comment after my man-pages-2.08 release. Maybe the
> system can be improved still. Currently Andrew Morton is being
> rather good about CCing me on patches that are likely to need
> man-pages changes. (Thanks Andrew!)
Yeah, vigilance is key; maybe I'm wrong that putting the kernel stuff
into the kernel tree would help, but it's worth a try, don't you
think? :)
> > Likewise with the glibc stuff. Doesn't it belong with the glibc
> > project? Wouldn't that make more sense, both from a packaging and
> > maintenance perspective?
>
> Not really -- glibc has a differnt philosophy about documentation
> (less focus on historical information and less comparison
> with other Unix systems, as far as I can see), and uses info(1),
> not man(1).
Oh yeah, forgot about that... I guess man vs. info and glibc development
philosophy is for another thread.
Thanks,
Jesse
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
