storage.conf(5) manpage name too generic?

Russ Allbery eagle at eyrie.org
Sat Sep 9 03:30:14 UTC 2017


Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik at greysector.net> writes:

> I'm one of the maintainers of inn package in Fedora. Recently, I
> received a report that inn's storage.conf(5) manpage has a name that's
> too generic and likely to conflict with other software:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1482048

> One example is skopeo, which also has a "storage.conf" file and an
> associated manpage, at least in Fedora:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/skopeo.git/tree/

> The report is asking if I'm ok with renaming the manpage to
> inn-storage.conf(5), so I'm asking the same question here.  Any
> comments?

Well, I don't think anyone here is going to object, and the name is pretty
generic.  It's kind of sad to lose the property that the man page has the
same name as the file, though.  It definitely makes it harder to find the
documentation.

While this isn't really a great excuse for using a very generic name, it's
worth noting that INN has installed that config file and man page for 19
years, or about six times longer than skopeo has existed.  So maybe they
shouldn't have used a name that was already in use.... :)

If we had it to do over again, we'd pick a name that was better
namespaced, but it feels a bit late to rename it now.  We *could*, I
suppose, but it's kind of a hassle, and I'm not sure it's worth the pain.

-- 
Russ Allbery (eagle at eyrie.org)              <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 mailing list