On Sat, 10 May 2008 17:52:43 +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 07:18:39PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > >This suggests that it should have a manpage. But, it's a *should*. On the > >other hand, I know that many "entities" which are not in $PATH have their > >own manpage -- see for example Perl modules. > > > >How should I behave here? > > I think the obvious answer makes your question moot: combine the two > into one binary and benchmark to decide what to do, as suggested in > 251259.
Uhm, yes. That's what I should've done before, sorry for not noticing. I'll work on that ASAP. > It seems that in the case of john, the main executable cannot figure out > which implementation is better, so the user may need to run the program > manually. Thus it needs a manpage. Also john-any and john-mmx might be seen as "implementation details". Thus I'm now thinking at a single manpage, with symlinks for john-mmx and john-any. However, before doing this, I should decide whether to keep this separation or not. > IANADD. Me neither, but I don't believe one needs to be a DD to read the Policy and think ;) Thanks, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
