Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:08:44 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A request to segregate man pages for shell built-ins Message-ID: <d31599a8-1a2d-36b1-bad4-deb3f7366eeb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <57bd52d4-bf61-454f-1b11-d7f96aa1c049@sjmulder.nl> References: <VI1PR02MB1200817E0E2CDD2A2A42E1A5F6440@VI1PR02MB1200.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> <f88cd63e-3cbc-4463-5219-99d204742b85@FreeBSD.org> <6f62db58-8220-0fe4-133b-410da2f58579@qeng-ho.org> <f88bce52-b120-c9cf-05bf-3c99ab99c522@FreeBSD.org> <57bd52d4-bf61-454f-1b11-d7f96aa1c049@sjmulder.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25/10/2017 09:56, Sijmen J. Mulder wrote: > Whilst I do appreciate builtin(1)'s comprehensiveness I too find it hard > to nagivate. > > Op 25-10-2017 om 10:10 schreef Matthew Seaman: >> In the case of eg. echo(1), I'd be happy to see the existing page for >> the stand-alone echo refactored to cover all of the different flavours >> of echo -- the behaviour is much the same in most use cases -- plus some >> discussion on how the variants differ. > > This seems like a good solution. But, how would shells in ports deal > with this? A builtin(1)-like foosh(1), or foosh_echo(1), foosh_case(1), > etc? Outside projects will do their own thing. We can (as the FreeBSD project) provide our own man pages for a FreeBSD port where we think that what upstream provides is deficient, and we can submit those pages upstream as good citizens are supposed to, but again, this relies entirely on someone volunteering to step up and do the work. However, it's unlikely that we'd want to try and integrate or combine man pages from external projects with base system manpages in any significant way. That's far too complex and fragile to be worth the effort. /usr/share/man and /usr/local/man are different worlds. Cheers, Matthew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d31599a8-1a2d-36b1-bad4-deb3f7366eeb>