Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:39:39 +0000 From: setantae <setantae@submonkey.net> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org, swear@blarg.net, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: docs/32082: true.1 totally incorrect Message-ID: <20011120093939.GA75402@rhadamanth> In-Reply-To: <200111200930.fAK9U1H23785@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <200111200930.fAK9U1H23785@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 01:30:01AM -0800, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > I think "true" and "false" should not bother with DIAGNOSTIC sections, > > but if used they should match the description's terminology and sense. > > > I agree. Me too. I just tried to fit in with stuff like ls(1) and mv(1), but it doesn't seem necessary in these cases. > > It's debatable whether the status of "false" should be given as "one" or > > "non-zero". Should man pages describe the actual program or the presumed > > specification of the program? What specification should be presumed in > > this case? > > > These manpages clain the conformance to POSIX, and POSIX says false(1) > should always return with a non-zero exit code, hence we should use > "non-zero". Seconded (that's why I wanted to see the standard). > Finally, I suggest to commit the following: <snip> Suits me. Ceri -- keep a mild groove on To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011120093939.GA75402>