--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation |
|
Date: |
Mon, 8 Sep 2014 11:26:52 -0600 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
Vincent Lefevre reported to the Debian BTS that the new documentation
shipped for the recently added coreutils binary breaks the existing
documentation for all of the coreutils utilities.
https://bugs.debian.org/760861
Confirmed. Perhaps the documentation node name can be changed to be
something non-conflicting with the package name? Or perhaps only
conditionally built if the binary is built? Or Vincent's suggestion
to use upper case. Or...?
If correspondents wish their responses logged to the Debian bug log
please add address@hidden to the email recipients list. (Two
BTS instances are a little difficult to stitch together until both bug
numbers are known.)
Bob
Original Debian report by Vincent Lefevre follows:
Subject: coreutils: in man pages, info invocation is incorrect: replace
coreutils by Coreutils
Package: coreutils
Version: 8.23-2
Severity: minor
For instance, in the touch(1) man page:
The full documentation for touch is maintained as a Texinfo manual. If
the info and touch programs are properly installed at your site, the
command
info coreutils 'touch invocation'
should give you access to the complete manual.
This is now incorrect (as of 8.23?), because it gives the page:
2.14 ‘coreutils’: Multi-call binary
===================================
‘coreutils’ invokes an individual utility, either implicitly selected by
the last component of ‘argv[0]’, or by explicitly calling ‘coreutils’
with the ‘--coreutils-prog’ option. Synopsis:
coreutils --coreutils-prog=PROGRAM …
The correct info invocation now is:
info Coreutils 'touch invocation'
Note: Since the coreutils utility doesn't seem to exist in Debian, this
section could be removed, but this problem may reappear in the future.
So, it's better to use the capital letter C.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation |
|
Date: |
Tue, 09 Sep 2014 10:50:14 +0100 |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 |
On 09/09/2014 04:55 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH 1/4] doc: mention which commands are optional
I was thinking that the bst way to do that would be to adjust things
so that the node wasn't installed if the command wasn't. But it's better
to have this info generally available online also, so +1
> Subject: [PATCH 2/4] doc: rename "coreutils invocation" to "Multi-call
I had done essentially this in my local patch :) so +1
One caveat is that `coreutils --help` is now not accurate
in its presented texinfo node name. Though I wouldn't
worry about that TBH, especially if relegating coreutils(1)
to a helper command in libexec. Now some systems may very well like the
explicit option of `coreutils $cmd ...`, but since we need the
--coreutils-prog option too I'd be on for keeping this as a helper command.
I've attached the now optional patch to adjust node names,
which I'm 60:40 for applying since it works with pinfo.
> Subject: [PATCH 3/4] maint: prefer 'return status;' to 'exit (status);' in
> 'main'
simpler so +1
There were a couple of syntax-check errors with this,
fixed in the attached.
> Subject: [PATCH 4/4] maint: avoid file-scope names of the form _[a-z]*
+1
Marking this bug as done...
thanks!
Pádraig.
multicall-info.patch
Description: Text Data
--- End Message ---