From owner-freebsd-bugs  Mon Apr  7 21:10:03 1997
Return-Path: <owner-bugs>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA14446
          for bugs-outgoing; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 21:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA14436;
          Mon, 7 Apr 1997 21:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 21:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199704080410.VAA14436@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-bugs
Cc: 
From: Tim Vanderhoek <tim@X2296>
Subject: Re: docs/3223: bad grammar in rm.1
Reply-To: Tim Vanderhoek <tim@X2296>
Sender: owner-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

The following reply was made to PR docs/3223; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Tim Vanderhoek <tim@X2296>
To: soil@quick.net
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, freebsd-bugs@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject: Re: docs/3223: bad grammar in rm.1
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:06:58 -0400 (EDT)

 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...  <hint!> <hint!>
 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?!