From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Mar 31 10:31:48 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id KAA29852 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 10:31:48 -0800
Received: from grendel.csc.smith.edu (grendel.csc.smith.edu [131.229.222.23]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA29846 for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 10:31:46 -0800
Received: from localhost (jfieber@localhost) by grendel.csc.smith.edu (8.6.5/8.6.5) id NAA13186; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 13:32:28 -0500
From: jfieber@cs.smith.edu (John Fieber)
Message-Id: <199503311832.NAA13186@grendel.csc.smith.edu>
Subject: Re: Shipping w/ HTTPD BAD IDEA
To: jbryant@news.iadfw.net (Jim Bryant)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 13:32:27 -0500 (EST)
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <199503311005.EAA20669@news.iadfw.net> from "Jim Bryant" at Mar 31, 95 04:05:58 am
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 963       
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> IMHO we should keep the man(1) type pages as standard equipment.

I thought they were an optional package in 2.0R.  Was the man(1)
command itself in the bindist?

> Granted, a hypertext manual would be a nice ADD-ON.  It would also be a 
> LOT of work.  Provided that 2.1 is going to be as stable as it is billed 
> to be, there will be plenty of time after that release... Let's get 2.1 
> working first!

I agree.  A hypertext interface to the man pages will take a lot
of work to get right and if it can't be done for 2.1, then we
shouldn't include httpd server (unless there is some other
compelling reason).  However, we DO have a hypertext FAQ and a
growing collection of hypertext tutorials so I think including
lynx is relevant, and a man/faq/tutorial package would be the
ideal place to put it. 

-john

=== jfieber@cs.smith.edu ================================================
=================================== Come up and be a kite!  --K. Bush ===