Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:01:45 -0500 (CDT) From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@tumbolia.com> To: Joseph Mallett <jmallett@newgold.net> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ln(1) manpage Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104241946390.92436-100000@shell-2.enteract.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSO.4.33.0104241901540.19045-100000@aphex.newgold.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Joseph Mallett wrote: :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 There's no symlink here. david@tumbolia ~ 501$ ls -li `which ln` `which link` 87315 -r-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 48544 Jan 21 21:30 /bin/link 87315 -r-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 48544 Jan 21 21:30 /bin/ln :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? It's the same binary. The manual page for a binary is supposed to describe its usage. If its usage changes based on how it's called, that should be documented. I wouldn't know link(1) existed if it weren't documented in the ln(1) man page. (I don't think I've ever used it, so that wouldn't really be a loss.) In some cases -- like tin/rtin(1) -- the correct solution presents itself by reading the usage section. I don't think it makes sense to put the same command in the "SEE ALSO" section -- it's for things like related commands, config files, system and library calls. David -- dscheidt@tumbolia.com Bipedalism is only a fad. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0104241946390.92436-100000>