From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Apr 24 16:13:19 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from guru.mired.org (okc-65-26-235-186.mmcable.com [65.26.235.186]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7E84A37B42C for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:13:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mwm@mired.org) Received: (qmail 51946 invoked by uid 100); 24 Apr 2001 23:13:15 -0000 From: Mike Meyer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15078.2187.658770.540065@guru.mired.org> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:13:15 -0500 To: Joseph Mallett Cc: Subject: Re: ln(1) manpage In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.90 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`;h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Joseph Mallett types: > In situations such as ln(1), where there's a symlink that makes the > command perform differently, as is the case with 'link', wouldn't it make > sense to move that information to link(1) manpage? Someone doing man ln > probably doesn't care about what link does, and view versa, no? They > could, however, have it in the '.SH SEE ALSO' section. That's what it's > for, yeah? ln and link are the same command (check the inode numbers). Do you really think we ought to have two man pages for the same command when it's such a simple command? http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message