Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote: >> I think you are reading it much to literally. > > The policy you're proposing (and incidentally, also the Debian policy) is > that literal. Requiring good documentation makes sense (though it's hard to > define "good documentation"). Requiring it to be in manpage format and to > document the command-line options (and not requiring anything else), even > for GUI apps, doesn't. If the problem is that troff is too arcane (and I'll be the first to admit it -- I hate it) then that needs fixing. I don't think it would matter that much what the source for the manpage looked like as long as "man someprogram" would dig up the documentation and display it in a similar looking format. The problem currently is some of the docs are accessible by man(1), some by info(1) and others by grovelling around /usr/share/doc/ . Instead of the computer doing the work and finding the documentation and displaying it, the user must. Old hacks might know all the places to look, but newbies sure wouldn't. > How useful is a manpage like this? > http://manpages.unixforum.co.uk/man-pages/linux/suse-linux-10.1/1/kalzium-man-page.html ;-) That is a good example of a contentless man page. I assume it was written by some 3rd party that didn't really understand what the program did, how it was meant to be used etc. -wolfgang -- Wolfgang S. Rupprecht Android 1.5 (Cupcake) and Fedora-11 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
