Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:13:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Joseph Mallett <jmallett@newgold.net> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ln(1) manpage Message-ID: <Pine.BSO.4.33.0104241912400.19045-100000@aphex.newgold.net> In-Reply-To: <15078.2187.658770.540065@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I wasn't necessarily talking about something 'simple' as ln(1), and yes, I know that they're the same command. I was more or less using it as an example, for a general question. -- [ Joseph Mallett <jmallett@[newgold.net|xmrg.com|xMach.org]> ] [ xMach Core Team xMach: Proactively Unbloated Microkernel BSD ] [ Proud Open/Free/Net/4.4BSD User; C Programmer; Mad ] [ www.xMach.org ] Those who dial will know its meaning: 6545666,555,666,6545666655654 On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Mike Meyer wrote: > Joseph Mallett <jmallett@newgold.net> 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? > > <mike > -- > Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> 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 > 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.BSO.4.33.0104241912400.19045-100000>