On Tue, 2024-02-20 at 16:10 +0100, Marc Deop i Argemí wrote: > 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? > Maybe you saying that me asking for something "sounded like entitlement". [...] > > > > > 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/ReviewGuid > elines/) > > > 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 It's my impression that the apps least likely to have man pages are the KDE ones. Could it be that the KDE Project doesn't place much emphasis on this? (That's a genuine question, not a rhetorical barb). poc -- _______________________________________________ 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
