Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:08:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Multiple (same) sets of man pages Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10304231351310.1203-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20030423133153.A35731@espresso.bsdmike.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Mike Barcroft wrote:
> Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> writes:
> > [ doc@ bcc:'d ]
> >
> > With 3 threading libraries, each with a set of the same man pages,
> > how should this be handled? It doesn't make any sense to have
> > all of them installed and yet it should still be possible to
> > install all 3 thread libraries.
> >
> > Do we need a different heirarchy for threads?
>
> Ideally, they'd all document the same specification. Perhaps there
Right, but there may be extensions in some that aren't in the
others. So those would be library-specific man pages. Like
pthread_switch_{add,delete}_np() that I believe is only supported
in libc_r. I have no plans on supporting it in libpthread
since it really doesn't make sense there. There will also be
other functions available in libpthread that aren't in libc_r
(and perhaps libthr).
> would be one document that discusses the pros and cons of each
> implementation with instructions on enabling them.
Right, I think an overall 'man threads' should give you that.
Eventually, libc_r should be deprecated so placing the common
man pages in there doesn't make sense. Of course we can ignore
it until we get to that point.
I've currently got the man pages commented out of libpthread's
Makefile 'cause it doesn't make sense to install them over
those installed by libc_r. I'm just raising the issue; I'll
do whatever the doc guys recommend.
--
Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10304231351310.1203-100000>