On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 09:30:33AM +0200, Glenn Moeller-Holst wrote:
> Then it could be nice with a response that resemple this:
>
> pc:/# *
> More than one command found:
> /abc/openoffice.bin - Application command, class DTP (from package abc).
> /abc/zgrepxyz.bin - Primarily for internal use (
Hi Karl and other interested people
Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 07:44:01AM +0200, Glenn Moeller-Holst wrote:
This Linux/Debian documentation suggestion, regards Linux and
applications commands.
It is proposed that the kernel and applications packets (.deb, .rpm
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 07:44:01AM +0200, Glenn Moeller-Holst wrote:
> > > This Linux/Debian documentation suggestion, regards Linux and
> > > applications commands.
> > >
> > > It is proposed that the kernel and applications packets (.deb, .rpm)
> > &g
.debian.devel".
Glenn:
I have removed maillist: "linux.debian.doc" from this mail because all the
persons that posted here also posted in other lists. I have cross posted to
"linux.debian.user" to respond to: Johannes Wiedersich and Douglas Allan Tutty.
> Thi
Am 2007-04-17 20:25:34, schrieb Glenn Moeller-Holst:
> Hi NG
Mailinglist!
> Purposes:
> *When "I" is in the catalog "/var/log" - what commands can I use here?
1) What is "I"?
2) /vat/log is what it is. A log directory.
> *Which commands is occluded by others at "/var/log"?
???
> *If I deinsta
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 08:25:34PM +0200, Glenn Moeller-Holst wrote:
> *If I deinstall "this" package - which commands are then lost?
> *If I want or need command xxzz, which packages can give me that?
apt-file is a system that creates a database of all files installed by
all packages in the debi
Glenn Moeller-Holst wrote:
Hi Glenn,
please don't cross post.
> This Linux/Debian documentation suggestion, regards Linux and
> applications commands.
>
> It is proposed that the kernel and applications packets (.deb, .rpm)
> includes (or has the possibilty to include) doc
> The "man" and "info" documentation should (with time) be included in
> the package. Why should I search the net for command documentations?
> The system should supply the right documentation.
Feel free to file a bug against each package that does not provide proper
documentation.
--
To UNSUBS
Hi NG
This Linux/Debian documentation suggestion, regards Linux and
applications commands.
It is proposed that the kernel and applications packets (.deb, .rpm)
includes (or has the possibilty to include) documentation about the
package commands. Maybe in many languages like Mac OS X. Mac OS
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> In a message dated 3/22/99 10:21:50 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> labs.com writes:
>
> > > Force of habit, I suppose Maybe it's time to remove the man pages for
> > > those programs that also have info pages, eh?
> >
> > Don't remove the
"HM" == Hamish Moffatt schrieb am 24 Mar 1999 23:19:54 +0100:
HM> IMHO, the info browser (in emacs or standalone) adds little
HM> functionality over a plain HTML document, except that it is much
HM> less accessible for non-emacs users.
I disagree. What if you don't have lynx installed and
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 10:24:29AM +0100, Holger Schauer wrote:
> IMO man pages serve as a quick thorough overview and should be as
> compact as possible. Info pages serve IMO a different need: they
> should provide detailed information, perhaps for some more obscure or
> advanced features. If _the
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 10:24:29AM +0100, Holger Schauer wrote:
> "MB" == Mark Brown schrieb am 23 Mar 1999 03:32:21 +0100:
> MB> ->HTML conversion seems to be the most likely route
> MB> for those that want a standard interface at present.
> I am strongly against having a _single_ interfac
Olaf Rogalsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This would be wonderful!!! Only one single point from where to search for
> documentation. If you ever executed a command like
> find /usr -type f|xargs egrep -li 'proxy|squid'
> then you know, that a central point for documentation would be a great time
"MB" == Mark Brown schrieb am 23 Mar 1999 03:32:21 +0100:
MB> ->HTML conversion seems to be the most likely route
MB> for those that want a standard interface at present.
I am strongly against having a _single_ interface to
documentation. Diversity is a good thing, IMHO, especially in this
On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 11:55:08AM -0800, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> Now isn't there a utility that will create 'man' pages out of 'info'
> ones? If so then at least some current information may be presented
> in man format for those of us that are more used to the 'older'
This would be hard - the
Timothy Hospedales wrote:
> Could someone tell me how to read info pages / find out what info
> pages
> are available? I know this is probably a dumb question, but I don't seem to
> have
> an info command - so does info use a different kind of syntax to man
> or is it a special package
Timothy Hospedales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could someone tell me how to read info pages / find out what info
> pages
> are available? I know this is probably a dumb question, but I don't seem to
> have
> an info command - so does info use a different kind of syntax to man
> or is
Timothy Hospedales dixit:
> Could someone tell me how to read info pages / find out what info
> pages
> are available? I know this is probably a dumb question, but I don't seem to
> have
> an info command - so does info use a different kind of syntax to man
> or is it a special package o
In a message dated 3/22/99 10:21:50 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
labs.com writes:
> > Force of habit, I suppose Maybe it's time to remove the man
pages for
> > those programs that also have info pages, eh?
>
> Don't remove the manpages. And don't start an "info vs. man"
Could someone tell me how to read info pages / find out what info pages
are available? I know this is probably a dumb question, but I don't seem to have
an info command - so does info use a different kind of syntax to man
or is it a special package or what?
Thanks!
Tim
> [EMAIL PROTECTED
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I've no intention of starting a flame war - but the fact remains, if the man
> pages are no longer being supported by developers, there's no sense including
> them in the man pages package. It just adds to the confusion.
Not true. If the manpage says "this manpage is
In a message dated 3/22/99 10:21:50 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
labs.com writes:
> > Force of habit, I suppose Maybe it's time to remove the man pages for
> > those programs that also have info pages, eh?
>
> Don't remove the manpages. And don't start an "info vs. man" wa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Force of habit, I suppose Maybe it's time to remove the man pages for
> those programs that also have info pages, eh?
Don't remove the manpages. And don't start an "info vs. man" war, either,
please!
--
+- pgp key available -
I also agree with the idea of having a single starting point for
documentation. And something I kind of wonder about - why are there always so
many documents for a given program? Can't they be combined into one document
devided into sections? With info pages, you can get to any specific section
> > I have to admit, there is a bit of truth to this, alot of people just don't
> > have the time to read 18 different documents in 18 different locations. Man
> > pages, info pages, FAQs, HOWTOs, mini-HOWTOs, READMEs, INSTALL docs, package
> > descriptions... it is a bit daunting. I do feel tha
>
> I have to admit, there is a bit of truth to this, alot of people just don't
> have the time to read 18 different documents in 18 different locations. Man
> pages, info pages, FAQs, HOWTOs, mini-HOWTOs, READMEs, INSTALL docs, package
> descriptions... it is a bit daunting. I do feel that anyo
27 matches
Mail list logo
