Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:10:06 GMT From: garys@opusnet.com (Gary W. Swearingen) To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: docs/84956: [patch] intro(5) manpage doesn't mention API coverage Message-ID: <200508161910.j7GJA6NT080512@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR docs/84956; it has been noted by GNATS. From: garys@opusnet.com (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org> Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/84956: [patch] intro(5) manpage doesn't mention API coverage Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:09:19 -0700 Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org> writes: > Ouch! The link(5) and acct(5) manpages seem a bit misplaced. They > don't describe a "file format", so they shouldn't be in section (5) > IMHO. There are a few other manpages in ``/usr/share/man/man5'' > that I am not sure about either. If you want me to do something, let me know. I could do more research and maybe ask ask on one or more lists whether people have objections to moving each seemingly-misplaced manpage to a newly-proposed section. > My intuition says that anyone who is reading intro(X) manpages should be > able to find out about all the other intro(Y) manpages. So, it seems > that inter-linking from any intro(X) manpage to the other intro(Y) > manpages, where X != Y, seems reasonable. Are you saying they should each reference all the others? OK by me, but I think it would better to have them all reference only intro(1), which already references all the others (except "intro(n)" because it does not exist). Manpage intro(1) probably also should have a section explaining the manual in general. I'll write PRs on the last two problems. But intro(5) should not reference only intro(1) and intro(8).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200508161910.j7GJA6NT080512>