| Summary: | man package.use is missing | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Matej Stepanek <dito2> |
| Component: | [OLD] Core system | Assignee: | Gentoo Linux bug wranglers <bug-wranglers> |
| Status: | VERIFIED INVALID | ||
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | 2006.0 | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Matej Stepanek
2006-04-26 14:06:34 UTC
man portage /package.use The fact that man portage describes package.use doesn't help this problem. If the user wants to know the documentation for package.use he types "man package.use". There's nothing in the name of the package.use file that would suggest that he should type man portage. I suggest a symlink or whatever be added so that man package.use actually produces man portage. The same way as man settimeofday produces gettimeofday(2). (In reply to comment #2) > I suggest a symlink or whatever be added so that man package.use actually > produces man portage. The same way as man settimeofday produces > gettimeofday(2). No. man portage is pretty logical manpage to read about portage settings. I don't see any reason why it should be logical to look into man portage when searching for the documentation of package.use. You say it's logical. Can you prove it? Regardless of whether it is logical or not, implementing my suggestion takes minimum work and doesn't increase the size of the system significantly. And it increases the comfort of the users that can't hold a complete mental image of the system in their mind (i. e. majority of users). Therefore the benefits outweight the drawbacks. This is why I suggest it to be implemented. (In reply to comment #4) > I don't see any reason why it should be logical to look into man portage when > searching for the documentation of package.use. You say it's logical. Can you > prove it? We won't be adding zillion symlinks/manpages for every thing described in man portage, if you are looking for help on working w/ portage, use man portage. Closed. I didn't suggest zillion symlinks, but only one. Please stop exaggerating. It really doesn't help anything, it's completely offtopic. (In reply to comment #7) > I didn't suggest zillion symlinks, but only one. Please stop exaggerating. It > really doesn't help anything, it's completely offtopic. Your suggestion doesn't make sense. Why not a symlink for package.keywords? Or package.mask? Or package.unmask? Or... man select has symlinks for pselect, FD_SET, FD_ISSET, FD_CLR, FD_ZERO - that's also a lot of symlinks. Why not package.use and friends? You are apparently bored, right? |
