Re: Manpages for binaries not in $PATH

[David Paleino <d.paleino@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 17:52:43 +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:

> On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 07:18:39PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> >This suggests that it should have a manpage. But, it's a *should*. On the
> >other hand, I know that many "entities" which are not in $PATH have their
> >own manpage -- see for example Perl modules.
> >
> >How should I behave here?
> 
> I think the obvious answer makes your question moot: combine the two
> into one binary and benchmark to decide what to do, as suggested in
> 251259.

Uhm, yes. That's what I should've done before, sorry for not noticing. I'll
work on that ASAP.

> It seems that in the case of john, the main executable cannot figure out
> which implementation is better, so the user may need to run the program
> manually.  Thus it needs a manpage.

Also john-any and john-mmx might be seen as "implementation details". Thus I'm
now thinking at a single manpage, with symlinks for john-mmx and john-any.
However, before doing this, I should decide whether to keep this separation or
not.

> IANADD.

Me neither, but I don't believe one needs to be a DD to read the Policy and
think ;)

Thanks,
David

-- 
 . ''`.  Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :'  : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`  GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature