Hi, > oldtechaa: > I see what you mean. I think a suggestion would still be good.
> As for its usefulness, it can help with the nuances of the Perl binding. > Some things get bound kind of weirdly, so personally, I use the C API > reference but when something doesn't work as it should, I use perli11ndoc. > The perl-specific examples can be invaluable. OK, this makes sense to me. > While it's convenient to have it in $PATH, I can see it being a problem, > especially since having no manpage violates Debian standards, doesn't it? > The problem is that's true of any executable from what I saw, not just > those in $PATH. The Debian Policy is not specific about this: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#manual-pages … but the Lintian check clarifies this with "Each binary in /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /bin, /sbin or /usr/games should have a manual page": https://lintian.debian.org/tags/binary-without-manpage.html I don't recall seeing a manpage for a script shipped in /usr/share/doc/$PACKAGE/examples. > Is there any way we can follow standards but keep > perli11ndoc, even if it's slightly less convenient? Sure: write a manpage (e.g. add POD and generate a manpage from it at build time or similar). Cheers, -- intrigeri
