Right, and I do understand the issue with the man pages, though I think it's a travesty that this great feature of UNIX/Linux/GNU systems is so undermaintained nowadays - I'd be willing to vigorously support a Fedora-centric effort to provide man pages centrally for packages which don't provide their own. That sounds awesome. And my suggestion to link to the GitHub locations for man pages that DO exist from our documentation stands as a way to help those upstream packages stay maintained, even if it's by us/our community!
And while all that would be awesome, I think the real focus of the conversation is on what kind of high-level Docs strategy we should have, and to that effect, I'm wondering why we don't just go with an ArchWiki-style solution. It's simple, elegant, seemingly easy (or at least as easy as any other solution) to maintain with a few tweaks (such as the good idea about aging documents), and it seems to be the overwhelmingly preferred choice of end users, for good reason.On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Itamar <itamar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 02/04/2016 12:52 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 02:50:39PM +0000, Ian Malone wrote:
>> On the particular issue of man pages, they belong to upstream
>> projects, which is where those documentation efforts should usually
>> go. I don't know if anyone (in any distro) has ever packaged patches
>> for man pages. Fedora Docs is really about the additional
> FWIW, Debian _does_ often generate man pages for packages which do not
> have them upstream.
>
the main problem is that Debian keep man pages with them instead of
sending to upstream.
--
docs mailing list
docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- docs mailing list docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
