From owner-freebsd-bugs Mon Apr 7 21:07:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA14306 for bugs-outgoing; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 21:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from X2296 (ppp1603.on.sympatico.ca [206.172.249.67]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA14300 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 21:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (tim@localhost) by X2296 (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA00216; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:06:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek Reply-To: ac199@hwcn.org To: soil@quick.net cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, freebsd-bugs@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/3223: bad grammar in rm.1 In-Reply-To: <199704080135.SAA13474@jg.dyn.ml.org> Message-ID: X-OS: FreeBSD 2.2 X-Mailer: Pine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bugs@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 7 Apr 1997 soil@quick.net wrote: > >Fix: > > The NOTE section should be removed since it's not unique to rm. No, it's not, but I think that it's important to include it there. It's not necessary to include it with every utility that uses getopt(3), but I think that rm(1) is a special case since it's what a beginner will use in their last-ditch attempt to get rid of that damn file that they _somehow_ created. I would, btw, make the same argument for _adding_ the mentioned NOTE to the mv(1) manpage... Arguably it's even more important to have it in the mv(1) page than the rm(1) page (even if not historically correct). -- tIM...HOEk Who's been messing with my anti-paranoi shot?!