From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 16 19:10:06 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-doc@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E8116A41F for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:10:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F15B43D49 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:10:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j7GJA6tl080513 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:10:06 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j7GJA6NT080512; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:10:06 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:10:06 GMT Message-Id: <200508161910.j7GJA6NT080512@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org From: garys@opusnet.com (Gary W. Swearingen) Cc: Subject: Re: docs/84956: [patch] intro(5) manpage doesn't mention API coverage X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Gary W. Swearingen" List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:10:06 -0000 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 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 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).