From owner-freebsd-doc Thu Nov 9 11:30: 7 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E43537B479 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 11:30:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id LAA82877; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 11:30:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 11:30:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200011091930.LAA82877@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Cc: From: Mike Meyer Subject: Re: docs/22676: No man pages for Make.conf or /usr/src/sys/Makefile Reply-To: Mike Meyer Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR docs/22676; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Mike Meyer To: Sheldon Hearn Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/22676: No man pages for Make.conf or /usr/src/sys/Makefile Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:22:59 -0600 (CST) Sheldon Hearn types: > On Wed, 08 Nov 2000 09:30:32 CST, Mike Meyer wrote: > > First, build(7) doesn't document a single file, but a process. Of > > course, it duplicates information in the files that take place in the > > process - but what man page doesn't duplicate information from the > > sources? > You're right. I stand down for build(7) (in other words, I think it's a > good idea), but still don't think that make.conf(5) is a good idea. Even though I've shown you how to do things so this doesn't make the stale documentation problem any worse than it already is, and it improves the accessibility of the documentation?