Better paths in documentation
rra at stanford.edu
Sun Aug 19 20:52:29 UTC 2007
Julien ÉLIE <julien at trigofacile.com> writes:
> All right.
> By the way, there is a little problem with pgpverify.1 and perl-nocem.8
> because both of them are always regenerated at build time (indeed, they
> come from pgpverify.in and perl-nocem.in so they change and documentation
> is regenerated for those two scripts).
> Their man pages should perhaps be generated from the .in files.
Yes, they should be generated from the .in files.
> Do you reckon that stuff like I<pathetc> should be kept or converted to
> the right path (which would perhaps speak better to the reader)?
Anything that can be configured in inn.conf should probably still use the
inn.conf option names.
> And do you think that a "FILES" section should be added to POD
> documentation when needed? For instance, we have in perl-nocem:
> =head1 FILES
> (which could also use @bindir@ and @PATHETC@)
> And is it the best format or should it be F<...>ied or with four spaces
> before each line?
It's a good idea to document the additional control and data files used,
using the files syntax of:
Description of what the file is for.
Lots of work, but it's always helpful documentation to have.
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Please send questions to the list rather than mailing me directly.
<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html> explains why.
More information about the inn-workers