From owner-freebsd-doc Fri Nov 10 1: 0: 6 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 45D3437B479 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 01:00:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id BAA92784; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 01:00:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 01:00:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200011100900.BAA92784@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: Nik Clayton , freebsd-doc@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/22676: No man pages for Make.conf or /usr/src/sys/Makefile Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:56:46 -0600 (CST) Sheldon Hearn types: > On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:32:25 CST, Mike Meyer wrote: > > I haven't seen that mail. It's not attached to the PR. Could you tell > > me where it showed up, or possibly forward it to me? > *grumble* *grumble* It always annoys me when folks mail the responsible > mailing list instead of copying their follow-up to the gnats handler. > I'll get Nik's message into gnats. For now, it's included in this > message. Thank you. To reply to a comment from Nik Clayton: > I understand that keeping them up to date is a chore, but I think as long > as they include a caveat that says something like > > BUGS > > This man page may lag behind the actual contents of the file, please > read the comments in the file for any new functionality. The man page references /etc/defaults/make.conf. And since Nik pointed out the relation to periodic.conf & rc.conf, they could use the same caveat. > then we should be OK. I'm also more than happy to support any committer > whacking you want to do when someone commits to /etc/make.conf without > updating make.conf(5) (and we should probably put a comment in the top of > /etc/make.conf saying exactly that. I hope you meant /etc/defaults/make.conf. /etc/make.conf isn't there until someone creates it post-install. Similar comments would be even more effective in the other file sin /etc/defaults.