[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Jens Schleusener
Subject: Re: [bug-recutils] Mini-bug in recutils-1.5 man pages
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:51:08 +0100 (CET)
User-agent: Alpine 2.02 (LSU 1266 2009-07-14)

Hi Jose,

   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

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 your very detailed and constructive answer.

And the "apology" isn't accepted since the manual's quality isn't low but looks professional. My "problem" as a "newbie" is/was only that the documentation - as you mentioned - has generally more reference character.

I am happy to have found "recutils"!


reply via email to

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