On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 00:03 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Friday 26 January 2007 17:12, Dmitriy Kropivnitskiy wrote: > >I am not saying the documents are perfect. And I will stipulate that man > > pages are an outdated form of documentation which should be abolished, > > not updated. > > Why abolish? If they are to be abolished, then there had better be a > usable alternative that is just as easily used put in their place. Info > files might be ok if one could ever figure out a reliable way to navigate > through the tree. A manpage is nice and simple, you just scroll up and > down to find what you want, if its in there. As for an alternative such > as DocBook, I have a lot of those that were on the FC2 box, and may be on > this one too, but I have yet, and with considerable frustration, to see a > single character displayed on my screen from one of those docbook files. > DocBook, as an executable file, does not exist in my $PATH, and it has no > manpage, none, nada. In other words, there (apparently) is no bridge > connecting a user of manpages that can convert him to a docbook reader. ---- docbook files are xml and a lot of programs can make sense of them but you are correct, there is no program, at least none that I am aware of, that is called docbook. Many programs are more than capable of opening/displaying docbook files such as web browsers and open office and they can be 'transformed' into PDF files or HTML pages. Likewise, utilities such as khelpcenter should be capable of rendering the information in a docbook file (unverified). If you want more info on docbook, go to wikipedia.org and look it up or simply go to www.docbook.org ---- > The documentation is NOT there, and doubly so if you are trying to > troubleshoot a net connection that isn't working. Where then are you > going to find the info? That's what bugs me, everybody points at google, > but what if google isn't available because your net won't come up? > > I repeat, fix the manpages by fixing my squawks above about the > definitions. ---- the man pages provide a simple description of the various commands but selinux is somewhat of a dense subject and the commands are somewhat remote to someone that doesn't make much of an effort to understand selinux concepts. There is rather extensive explanations on fedoraproject.org... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux ---- > No clue to lead me to them, and how was I to know I should have been > searching for 'lib'selinux. Surely all these 'tools' are not all in the > libselinux src archive? I see all sorts of rpms for the rest of selinux, > available as binary rpms... But, I'll have to hang my head and plead > guilty for giving up when there was no selinx-version.src.rpm to be > sucked. ---- if you want to learn selinux, go through the above link - which probably is the best selinux information that you will find anywhere on the web. As Anne has discovered, the selinux list (also a Red Hat list) is a place where you can get specific questions answered. Whining about the man pages is a cop out. Craig
