[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bug-inetutils] Re: inetutils release...

From: Simon Josefsson
Subject: Re: [bug-inetutils] Re: inetutils release...
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:47:03 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <address@hidden> writes:

>    I propose to put them in a man/ sub-directory, similar to
>    CoreUtils.  Thoughts?  I don't think I'm going to write *.x files,
>    the default help2man outputs should be good enough as a starting
>    point.
> Sounds like a plan.  We can add FOO.x files as issues arise.

It may be nicer to use a .x file instead of using the --name parameter
to specify a description of the tool.

> [please allow for atleast 2 days of wait time, less than 24 hours is
> far to short for anyone to react if they have anything to say]

I'll wait until next week to push anything here.

>    +telnet.1: $(top_srcdir)/telnet/main.c $(top_srcdir)/configure.ac
>    +  $(HELP2MAN) \
>    +          --name="User interface to TELNET" \
>    +          --output=$@ $(top_builddir)/telnet/telnet$(EXEEXT)
> Is there no easier way to do this than duplicate each rule?

The rules aren't completely similar, several things will vary between
each man page:

  1) the --name parameter is different for each tool (but maybe a .x
     file is a better idea here), and

  2) the dependencies will be different for each tool, and

  3) the binary name to use will also be different for each tool.

Ideas for better approaches welcome, I don't see any _easy_ solution
that reduces redundancy, although there may be some more complex
solutions that would reduce redundancy.

I'm not sure if more complexity is better than less redundancy though,
both are unwanted properties.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]