Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:13:15 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Joseph Mallett <jmallett@newgold.net> Cc: <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ln(1) manpage Message-ID: <15078.2187.658770.540065@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSO.4.33.0104241901540.19045-100000@aphex.newgold.net> References: <Pine.BSO.4.33.0104241901540.19045-100000@aphex.newgold.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15078.2187.658770.540065>