On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 05:36:29AM +0100, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > > > apt-listchanges(1), bts(1), dhelp(1), dwww(1), fontforge(1), man(1), > > > > mensis(1), querybts(1), sensible-browser(1), urlview(1), ... > > Debian is of course free to patch their own version of the pages. > But before doing so, it may be worthwhile to check out how > many applications actually use BROWSER and whether they actually > observe the % conventions. If I see some convincing information, > I would consider patching upstream.
Since out of 10 programs on my system that respect BROWSER, six are Debian utilities, perhaps it is best left to the Debian maintainer to decide whether to document the extended version. Out of the non-Debian utilities, only man and urlview claim to support the extended version. Still, with respect to the basic version, can you provide some counterexample of a program that launches an external browser that does _not_ respect a user's BROWSER variable? If counterexamples are hard to come by, perhaps it is worth documenting at least the basic version. That way, a user is aware that he has control over what browser is launched - in the same manner he has control over what external editor is launched. And maybe the counterexamples should be considered usability bugs anyway; who wants a hard-coded external browser? -- Ryan Underwood, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
