Re: [bug-recutils] Mini-bug in recutils-1.5 man pages

[Jose E. Marchesi]

Hi Jens.
    
    in the recutils-1.5 man pages I found at the bottom the string
    "1.4.93". Is that intentional or a small bug?

Ops, that was a mistake.  The contents of the manpages is the same for
both 1.4.93 and 1.5, but it should read 1.5.
    
    And some further small comments from a "recutils"-newbie: I read the
    recsel man-page and the recsel info-page (ok, not completely)
    especially in order to find something about the usage of regular
    expressions. [...]

I just committed a patch with the following changes, which I hope will
make it easier for the people to find the recutils documentation:

First, I added "direntries" for the individual utilities, so for example
now info recsel actually shows the 'recsel' chapter of the recutils user
manual.  Up to now an info-ized version of the manual page was shown
instead.

Additionally, I modified the arguments used in help2man so in the
generated manpages the user is redirected to 'info recutils', and not
'info recsel' or 'info recins'.  I think this is a sensible option since
the format itself is documented in the manual.

     recsel -q "loane?" books.rec
    
    (that didn't work).

The --quick,-q option currently only works with fixed patterns.  But I
like the idea of supporting -q REGEXP, so I will implement it in the
development version :)
    
    Ok, in the recsel man page I found in SYNOPSIS different argument
    types, for "-e" "RECORD_EXPR" and for "-q" "EXPR". But later in the
    man page itself for "-e" "EXPR" and for "-q" "STR", a little bit
    confusing at least for me as newbie.

I committed a patch unifying the optarg names used in the --help
outputs, manpages and the texinfo manual.
    
    I think some more examples would be helpful for non-experts to make
    the first usage of that promising tool a little bit easier.

Definitely.  I apologize for the low quality of the manual, and the fact
that it does not contain tutorial-like information.  It is more a
reference, and not very good... oh well, I will have to improve it.

Thanks for the report! :)
    
-- 
Jose E. Marchesi         http://www.jemarch.net
GNU Project              http://www.gnu.org