> >> Can you briefly describe what's the added value of the missing
> >> documents, compared to the existing man page and some existing info
> >> documents?
> >
> > I find the reference manual much more readable (and more suitable for
> > printing) since it is structured more like a book. It goes into greater
> > detail and has more explanatory information ("What is a shell?", "What is
> > bash?" and so on) than the man page, which is IMHO just a (far) overgrown
> > quick-reference sheet. :)
>
> You are right, it's a worthwile addition. If you prepare a package
> (preferrably "blessed" by debian-mentors), I'm willing to sponsor it.
> I think we should also ask the release team about an exception for
> inclusion of the package in etch.
Thanks, that's great to hear! Unfortunately my PC's PSU died in a
spectacular fashion on Saturday so I probably won't be able to do this
for a few days.
> Matthias, are you willing to remove the registering of the document
> from bash-doc's maintainer scripts in an upload targetted at etch?
> Otherwise we'd need to use a different name (perhaps being a symlink to
> the normal name).
I'd prefer to not rename the info file so that users can continue to run
'info bashref' to read it. Would this bug become RC if the bash-doc
package broke the bash-doc-nonfree package by unregistering its
documentation files? :)
> Regards, Frank
Cheers!
--
Sam Morris
http://robots.org.uk/
PGP key id 5EA01078
3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
