On Monday, 19 February 2024 11:32:23 CET Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > Actually it feels like user engagement. Listening to what your user > community wants is good policy. You may disagree with the specific > request, in which case feel free to explain why rather than dismissing > someone for asking. > What makes you think that we don't listen? Everybody agrees with you, it would be nice to have the man pages. Just as *you* don't implement it, our time/energy/resources are limited and likely better allocated elsewhere and, thus, commented that help is welcome. If you don't have a patch, I can suggest you to open a ticket upstream requesting the inclusion of the man page :-) > > No, I'd rather there was a policy of requiring man pages, along with > the other policies regarding what is accepted in Fedora. There *is* a policy: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages . It just happens to not be a mandatory thing ;-) >From the review guidelines (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/) > SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn’t, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.footnote -- _______________________________________________ kde mailing list -- kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kde-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
