Hello Joseph, On 5/20/19 6:58 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Fri, 17 May 2019, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > >> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 11:51 AM G. Branden Robinson >> <g.branden.robinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> What would you prefer? That the man page not document the bug at all? >>> Was it a mistake in your view to have added the information about the >>> bug to the man page in the first place? >> >> I think having the glibc upstream version information is useful. > > Likewise - if a bug is worth documenting there I think it's unavoidable > that the version numbers describe when things changed in glibc upstream. > > What's more of an issue is when the BUGS section gets out of date or the > descriptions of the conditions for an issue are misleading. pow(3) is a > case in point; it says "On 64-bits" meaning "on systems using the generic > implementation" (i.e., it's written from an assumption that x86_64 and > i386 are the only architectures and that i386 is the default) and that> issue was fixed in 2.28, So should the text now read something like: "Before glibc 2.28, on 64-bit systems [this bug existed]"? > while the "If x is negative" described there was > both i386-specific (not mentioned as such) and fixed in 2.16. And similarly, should the text now read something like: "On i386 systems and glibc versions earlier than 2.16..."? Thanks, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
