Re: Manpages for binaries not in $PATH

2008-05-12 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 11 May 2008 00:36:00 +0700, Mikhail Gusarov wrote: > >> Twas brillig at 19:18:39 10.05.2008 UTC+02 when David Paleino did gyre and >> gimble: >> >> DP> How should I behave here? >> >> I'd treat john-any and john-mmx as parts of program - merel

Re: Manpages for binaries not in $PATH

2008-05-10 Thread David Paleino
On Sat, 10 May 2008 17:52:43 +, 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 -- s

Re: Manpages for binaries not in $PATH

2008-05-10 Thread brian m. carlson
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

Re: Manpages for binaries not in $PATH

2008-05-10 Thread David Paleino
On Sun, 11 May 2008 00:36:00 +0700, Mikhail Gusarov wrote: > Twas brillig at 19:18:39 10.05.2008 UTC+02 when David Paleino did gyre and > gimble: > > DP> How should I behave here? > > I'd treat john-any and john-mmx as parts of program - merely > implementation details. That's what I thought.

Re: Manpages for binaries not in $PATH

2008-05-10 Thread Mikhail Gusarov
Twas brillig at 19:18:39 10.05.2008 UTC+02 when David Paleino did gyre and gimble: DP> How should I behave here? I'd treat john-any and john-mmx as parts of program - merely implementation details. -- pgpuSWy7MBu2Y.pgp Description: PGP signature