Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Spider <spider@g.o>
Subject: Re: the man-pages package
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 23:32:08 +0100
begin  quote
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:45:19 -0500
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Tuesday 09 December 2003 16:36, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> > 1.  Should man-pages really belong in the base system (emerge
> > system)?
> 
> yes
> 
> > 2. Which package's manpages should be preferred, assuming (as is
> > correct
> > to assume at least until portage-ng comes out) that portage has no
> > conflicting-files-resolution feature?
> 
> whichever package provides the binary should provide the manpage
> - -mike

Actually, Considering the "quality" of the coreutils manpage, I'd
suggest removing coreutils manpages from the system and going with
man-pages versions.   They are far easier to understand and provide
information.

//Spider




-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end
Attachment:
pgpGe8V5QDFfw.pgp (PGP signature)
References:
the man-pages package
-- Seemant Kulleen
Re: the man-pages package
-- Mike Frysinger
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: the man-pages package
Next by thread:
Re: the man-pages package
Previous by date:
Re: CFLAGS moved to ebuilds.
Next by date:
Re: the man-pages package


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.