On 6/7/14, 8:41 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 10:52:48AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 6/6/14, 5:03 AM, Karel Zak wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 11:44:28AM +0200, Karel Zak wrote: >>>> I personally have no problem to maintain information about arbitrary >>>> FS in mount.8, the problem are updates. Unfortunately, kernel FS developers >>>> don't care about the man page at all and it's very often not up to date. >>> >>> Hmm.. another possible way would be to create a script for util-linux >>> that will analyze kernel Documentation/filesystems/<fsname>.txt and >>> report changes that is necessary to make to mount.8. It should be >>> relative simple with git. I'll try it.. >> >> I like that idea. Maybe <fsname.txt> will need a defined format, though, >> right? Maybe asciidoc? >> >> I've still been meaning (in theory) to produce a mount manpage just for xfs. >> I'm still willing to do that if the above doesn't pan out. I just need >> to get to it. I'd be happy to do it for extN as well. > > Autogenerating man pages from an adhoc format sounds like the wrong > approach. I'd much rather have proper man paged for every filesystem. > With those we could also drop all that information from the kernel > Documentation directory, where users won't looks for them anyway. Well, asciidoc wouldn't be ad-hoc, but still... > Eric, if you take care of xfs an extN I'll get started on man pages > for the various "minor" filesystems that don't really have active > maintainers. > > Not sure if we should go for mount.<fstype>.8 man pages or just improve > the <fstype>.5 pages, but I think the second one is more obvious. Since some mount.<fstype> binaries actually exist, that would probably lead to some confusion. -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
