Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:12:57 -0400 From: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Multiple (same) sets of man pages Message-ID: <20030423201257.A36743@espresso.bsdmike.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10304231351310.1203-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>; from eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com on Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 02:08:40PM -0400 References: <20030423133153.A35731@espresso.bsdmike.org> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10304231351310.1203-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> writes:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Mike Barcroft wrote:
>
> > Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> writes:
> > > [ doc@ bcc:'d ]
> > >
> > > With 3 threading libraries, each with a set of the same man pages,
> > > how should this be handled? It doesn't make any sense to have
> > > all of them installed and yet it should still be possible to
> > > install all 3 thread libraries.
> > >
> > > Do we need a different heirarchy for threads?
> >
> > Ideally, they'd all document the same specification. Perhaps there
>
> Right, but there may be extensions in some that aren't in the
> others. So those would be library-specific man pages. Like
> pthread_switch_{add,delete}_np() that I believe is only supported
> in libc_r. I have no plans on supporting it in libpthread
> since it really doesn't make sense there. There will also be
> other functions available in libpthread that aren't in libc_r
> (and perhaps libthr).
I think you could still share the documents and use the LIBRARY
section to document which thread libraries support a given function.
Best regards,
Mike Barcroft
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030423201257.A36743>