Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:24:53 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> Cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/man/man5 make.conf.5 src/share/man/man7 build.7 Message-ID: <14878.49285.387120.103524@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <359.975049317@axl.fw.uunet.co.za> References: <14878.334.195893.396445@guru.mired.org> <359.975049317@axl.fw.uunet.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> types: > On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 23:49:02 CST, Mike Meyer wrote: > > As the author of that page, I object to the phrase "saying > > nothing". Yeah, it says nothing to someone who knows what's in it. So > > what? That's true of *every* man page. > I think the issue here is not about whether this stuff should be > documented. I think that this is already better documented in the > handbook, and I think that the handbook is a better medium for conveying > this kind of information. Is there a document describing which types of things go in man vs the handbook? I noticed ports(7) and rc.conf(5), which is what made me decide that man pages were more appropriate than the handbook. On a larger scale, is there a rational for having these things be two document repositories at all? That's the kind of thing that strikes me as a bad idea without a clear and obvious reason for doing so. Thanx, <mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14878.49285.387120.103524>