On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 03:37:13PM +0100, Bernard Leak wrote:
> Dear List,
>
> Firstly, thanks to Bob Proulx for the helpful pointer to the Debian
> search widget. This is a genuinely useful-looking tool. How pleasing!
> But unless he thinks this is another thing I should "just know about",
> it's worth documenting *somewhere*. I don't suggest that the GCC
> documentation should necessarily mention the Debian web-site
> (indeed, it is surely better not to): but the GCC documentation left
> me stuck over "Mail". with nowhere to go.
Patches are welcome.
> How difficult does it have to be to find something out before adding it
> to the documentation looks like a benefit to other people? Is forcing me
> (and any others in the same position later) to ask an unnecessary
> question something to be encouraged, as an exercise in communal
> living, or something? Do you all have too much time on your hands?
No, that's why a patch from you would help, even if it's only a starting
point for someone else to improve on. Many of us are volunteers, so if
something isn't a problem to us then getting round to fixing it doesn't
always seem appealing. Send a patch to help us out.
I sometimes make changes to the docs when I see something that could be
improved, but currently I'm busy working on other things which cause me
real problems.
> Is there any information you would like to delete from the documentation
> on the same principle?
Probably. Patches welcome.
> I'm not asking anyone to guess at things I might possibly not know and
> explain them in the documentation. I am asking for two *specific* things
> (which in fact I did not know) to be explained in the documentation,
> because brute-force searching in "the obvious places" doesn't produce
> the Right Thing, but can and does throw up misleading clues to the Wrong
> Thing. "Mail" in particular is not the name of a GNU utility, but "mail"
> is. The results submission script uses "Mail". My distribution has
> "mailx", which completes the set of three! How confusing and inconsistent
> does it have to be before it seems like a candidate for documentation?
Send a patch, it might get more attention than a request without a
patch.
> hand ("Linux in a Nutshell", 4th Edition). I have now gone back to
> check: the documentation for "mail" mentions neither "Mail" nor "mailx",
> and I found no references to "Mail" or "mailx" in the index. I have
> now gone over the "sendmail" documentation (apparently for Big
> Sendmail). Zack Weinberger's first reply to me is still the only
> indication I've ever noticed that there is more than one thing called
> "sendmail".
Search rpmfind.net for /usr/sbin/sendmail, you'll see lots of
non-sendmail packages provide that executable.
> If you have a lot of time to waste you might try finding "Mail" in
> the Linux Documentation Project tree. You do have a lot of time
> to waste, don't you? I mean, it *might* be in there. Somewhere.
> Yes, I tried this at length before I gave up and made my posting.
> Again, I didn't think there was much point in mentioning it.
This isn't GCC's problem. Send a patch :-)
jon
--
I don't pretend to be an expert on intellectual property law, but I do
know one thing. If a music industry executive claims I should agree with
their agenda because it will make me more money, I put my hand on my wallet
... and check it after they leave, just to make sure nothing's missing.
- Janis Ian <http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html>
