Le lundi 30 avril 2007, Michael Kerrisk a écrit :
Hello downstream man-pages folk,
For a long time, man-pages has had a few section 1 pages:
chgrp.1 chmod.1 chown.1 cp.1 dd.1 df.1 diff.1 dir.1 dircolors.1 du.1 install.1 intro.1 ldd.1 ln.1 ls.1 mkdir.1 mkfifo.1 mknod.1 mv.1 rm.1 rmdir.1 time.1 touch.1 vdir.1
However, most of these pages are rather unmaintained and out of date, or better versions are provided in other packages, or 'info" provides better info. And the Section 1p pages from POSIX cover the portable subset of functionality that should exist for these commands on all systems.
In any case, I would like to lose most of these from man-pages, since they are not about programming interfaces. The *possible* exceptions that I may keep are:
intro.1 ldd.1
Unless I hear some good objections these pages are likely to disappear from man-pages in the next few weeks.
I have objections Michael, sorry ;-) Of course, these man pages are really to old! There is only one reason its are old, noboby maintiends its...
And I'll say like Andries said: "I like man pages and I hate info pages"....
I have two reasons: - man pages are really easy to use, not info pages... - man pages are translatable! Not info pages!!!!!
Everybody have to speak english to be able to use Linux? Fuck!!!! Windows is translated ! Many people want to use Linux and aren't able to speak or read english. What about translators? I'm the french man pages maintener, I maintend as soon is possible for me the french man pages translation. What about us? GNU want to kill us? GNU don't care about translators? Is english the universal language? No! French is the universal diplomatic langage!!! So, let us be able to translate help or documentation. And GNU info page are untranslatable! Unfortunately... Is the GNU project acting than an owner project?
I have to say you that now, I hate the GNU project because it act like a owner project.... Only english? Fuck you!!!! Don't forget Linus isn't an english man
Michael, we have to find mainteners who accept to release man pages against the info pages...
I don't know how is Richard Stallman with the GNU project, but I know he will be in my town in june, the 14th... Be sure he hear me.... About the GNU project, about the FSF! French translators are really hungry with the FSF... The FSF never answer them, never answer their disclaimer!
Michael, are you sure you can't find mainteners for these man pages?
Yours sincerely, Alain
Afficher les réponses par date
On Thursday 10 May 2007, Alain PORTAL wrote:
Le lundi 30 avril 2007, Michael Kerrisk a écrit :
Hello downstream man-pages folk,
For a long time, man-pages has had a few section 1 pages:
chgrp.1 chmod.1 chown.1 cp.1 dd.1 df.1 diff.1 dir.1 dircolors.1 du.1 install.1 intro.1 ldd.1 ln.1 ls.1 mkdir.1 mkfifo.1 mknod.1 mv.1 rm.1 rmdir.1 time.1 touch.1 vdir.1
However, most of these pages are rather unmaintained and out of date, or better versions are provided in other packages, or 'info" provides better info. And the Section 1p pages from POSIX cover the portable subset of functionality that should exist for these commands on all systems.
In any case, I would like to lose most of these from man-pages, since they are not about programming interfaces. The *possible* exceptions that I may keep are:
intro.1 ldd.1
Unless I hear some good objections these pages are likely to disappear from man-pages in the next few weeks.
I have objections Michael, sorry ;-) Of course, these man pages are really to old! There is only one reason its are old, noboby maintiends its...
they were never maintained ... they were simply imported from the GNU projects
taking coreutils as an example (since the list above is pretty much completely for coreutils), it provides fully up-to-date man pages for most of the things here ... there's no point in constantly copying and updating the versions in man-pages when the coreutils project is already doing it -mike
Le Friday 11 May 2007 00:48:52 Mike Frysinger, vous avez écrit :
Unless I hear some good objections these pages are likely to disappear from man-pages in the next few weeks.
I have objections Michael, sorry ;-) Of course, these man pages are really to old! There is only one reason its are old, noboby maintiends its...
they were never maintained ... they were simply imported from the GNU projects
Import was maintened by Andries.
taking coreutils as an example (since the list above is pretty much completely for coreutils), it provides fully up-to-date man pages for most of the things here ... there's no point in constantly copying and updating the versions in man-pages when the coreutils project is already doing it -mike
These man pages are insubstantial. The only interresting thing in them is "See the info page of the command for the full documentation" :-(
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 06:48:52PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
Of course, these man pages are really to old! There is only one reason its are old, noboby maintiends its...
they were never maintained ... they were simply imported from the GNU projects taking coreutils as an example (since the list above is pretty much completely for coreutils), it provides fully up-to-date man pages for most of the things here ... there's no point in constantly copying and updating the versions in man-pages when the coreutils project is already doing it
You are entirely mistaken. I spent a nontrivial amount of time writing these pages, long ago.
NAME chown - change file owner and group
SYNOPSIS chown [options] user[:group] file...
POSIX options: [-R] [--]
GNU options (shortest form): [-cfhvR] [--dereference] ...
These pages were far superior to what GNU provided. But they are outdated today. POSIX has changed and coreutils has changed.
Andries
On Friday 11 May 2007, Andries Brouwer wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 06:48:52PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
Of course, these man pages are really to old! There is only one reason its are old, noboby maintiends its...
they were never maintained ... they were simply imported from the GNU projects taking coreutils as an example (since the list above is pretty much completely for coreutils), it provides fully up-to-date man pages for most of the things here ... there's no point in constantly copying and updating the versions in man-pages when the coreutils project is already doing it
You are entirely mistaken. I spent a nontrivial amount of time writing these pages, long ago.
sorry, the TH section that states "GNU fileutils 4.1" implied that the man page was taken from that package / version ... i didnt actually check the source -mike
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 07:22:22AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
sorry, the TH section that states "GNU fileutils 4.1" implied that the man page was taken from that package / version ... i didnt actually check the source
Yes, the man-pages package has contained ls.1 etc for a while. The last update was for fileutils 4.0, as seen e.g. in ls(1)
-h, --human-readable Append a size letter, such as M for binary megabytes (`mebibytes'), to each size. (New in fileutils-4.0.) ... NOTES This page describes ls as found in the fileutils-4.0 package; other versions may differ slightly.
These pages are now being discarded, which is a pity since they are still better than the corresponding GNU pages. But it is true that they are outdated - one evening of work is needed to update them.
More in general it is a pity that when people complained to GNU that they preferred man pages over info files the GNU reaction was to provide low quality, machine-generated, man-pages, telling people to read the info files. Of course such low-quality man-pages are worse than having nothing at all, since they will replace good man-pages from elsewhere.
Andries
Alain PORTAL wrote:
Unless I hear some good objections these pages are likely to disappear from man-pages in the next few weeks.
I have objections Michael, sorry ;-) Of course, these man pages are really to old! There is only one reason its are old, noboby maintiends its...
And I'll say like Andries said: "I like man pages and I hate info pages"....
I have two reasons:
- man pages are really easy to use, not info pages...
- man pages are translatable! Not info pages!!!!!
Everybody have to speak english to be able to use Linux? Fuck!!!! Windows is translated ! Many people want to use Linux and aren't able to speak or read english. What about translators? I'm the french man pages maintener, I maintend as soon is possible for me the french man pages translation. What about us? GNU want to kill us? GNU don't care about translators? Is english the universal language? No! French is the universal diplomatic langage!!! So, let us be able to translate help or documentation. And GNU info page are untranslatable! Unfortunately... Is the GNU project acting than an owner project?
I have to say you that now, I hate the GNU project because it act like a owner project.... Only english? Fuck you!!!! Don't forget Linus isn't an english man
Michael, we have to find mainteners who accept to release man pages against the info pages...
As long as they're old and unmaintained, they're useless.
If you can, start a gnu-manpages package that automatically converts commonly used GNU info pages into manpages. Do this automatically, so that the pages are maintained. They can then be a source for translations.
Speaking of translations, it should be no problem for translated manpages packages (such as manpages-fr) to include section 1 manpages, even if they are not included in man-pages but only in the proper source packages from the GNU project.
Michael, are you sure you can't find mainteners for these man pages?
What about you?
Regards,
Joey
Le Friday 11 May 2007 08:03:53 Martin Schulze, vous avez écrit :
Michael, we have to find mainteners who accept to release man pages against the info pages...
As long as they're old and unmaintained, they're useless.
Sure
If you can, start a gnu-manpages package that automatically converts commonly used GNU info pages into manpages. Do this automatically, so that the pages are maintained. They can then be a source for translations.
This is a good idea, unfortunately, I can't, I'm not a good programer. More than one year ago, I tried to convert manually core-utils info pages in man pages format. I stopped because there is really to much work.
Speaking of translations, it should be no problem for translated manpages packages (such as manpages-fr) to include section 1 manpages, even if they are not included in man-pages but only in the proper source packages from the GNU project.
Michael, are you sure you can't find mainteners for these man pages?
What about you?
I really don't have time enough for a such work.
On Friday 11 May 2007, Martin Schulze wrote:
If you can, start a gnu-manpages package that automatically converts commonly used GNU info pages into manpages. Do this automatically, so that the pages are maintained. They can then be a source for translations.
the maintainers of coreutils dont seem to be of the normal GNU [closed] mindset, so if a good solution was submitted to them, i'm pretty sure they'd include it -mike
Alain PORTAL wrote:
Le lundi 30 avril 2007, Michael Kerrisk a écrit :
Hello downstream man-pages folk,
For a long time, man-pages has had a few section 1 pages:
chgrp.1 chmod.1 chown.1 cp.1 dd.1 df.1 diff.1 dir.1 dircolors.1 du.1 install.1 intro.1 ldd.1 ln.1 ls.1 mkdir.1 mkfifo.1 mknod.1 mv.1 rm.1 rmdir.1 time.1 touch.1 vdir.1
However, most of these pages are rather unmaintained and out of date, or better versions are provided in other packages, or 'info" provides better info. And the Section 1p pages from POSIX cover the portable subset of functionality that should exist for these commands on all systems.
In any case, I would like to lose most of these from man-pages, since they are not about programming interfaces. The *possible* exceptions that I may keep are:
intro.1 ldd.1
Unless I hear some good objections these pages are likely to disappear from man-pages in the next few weeks.
I have objections Michael, sorry ;-) Of course, these man pages are really to old! There is only one reason its are old, noboby maintiends its...
Hi Alain,
It's good that you responded to my mail, since that gives me a chance to follow up with more detail.
As I understand it, Andries put these pages together drawing information from existing man-pages, and POSIX, to cover portability stuff.
I've checked the situation on Mandriva, Fedora, SUSE, Gentoo, Ubuntu and Debian. In only one of those distributions were these man1 pages even being distributed. Most of them are distributing the coreutils versions of the pages. The exception is Gentoo, which is going to now swap over to the coreutils versions of the pages.
Most distributions also distribure that man1p POSIX versions of these pages, which people can check for portability info.
I will keep the following pages:
intro.1 ldd.1 time.1
The first two of those pages are still distributed by many distributors, and a few also distribute the last one.
The other man-pages will be dropped with the release of man-pages-2.50, which will appear in a few weeks.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Kerrisk wrote:
Alain PORTAL wrote:
Le lundi 30 avril 2007, Michael Kerrisk a écrit :
Hello downstream man-pages folk,
For a long time, man-pages has had a few section 1 pages:
chgrp.1 chmod.1 chown.1 cp.1 dd.1 df.1 diff.1 dir.1 dircolors.1 du.1 install.1 intro.1 ldd.1 ln.1 ls.1 mkdir.1 mkfifo.1 mknod.1 mv.1 rm.1 rmdir.1 time.1 touch.1 vdir.1
However, most of these pages are rather unmaintained and out of date, or better versions are provided in other packages, or 'info" provides better info. And the Section 1p pages from POSIX cover the portable subset of functionality that should exist for these commands on all systems.
In any case, I would like to lose most of these from man-pages, since they are not about programming interfaces. The *possible* exceptions that I may keep are:
intro.1 ldd.1
Unless I hear some good objections these pages are likely to disappear from man-pages in the next few weeks.
I have objections Michael, sorry ;-) Of course, these man pages are really to old! There is only one reason its are old, noboby maintiends its...
Hi Alain,
It's good that you responded to my mail, since that gives me a chance to follow up with more detail.
As I understand it, Andries put these pages together drawing information
from existing man-pages, and POSIX, to cover portability stuff.
I've checked the situation on Mandriva, Fedora, SUSE, Gentoo, Ubuntu and Debian. In only one of those distributions were these man1 pages even being distributed. Most of them are distributing the coreutils versions of the pages. The exception is Gentoo, which is going to now swap over to the coreutils versions of the pages.
In a wonderful piece of English-centrism, I forgot to mention that I have only checked the situation in the English versions of all of those distributions... French is the most current of the translations of course, and Martin Schulze pointed out a possible solution of this really is a problem for the French translation.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Kerrisk wrote:
In a wonderful piece of English-centrism, I forgot to mention that I have only checked the situation in the English versions of all of those distributions... French is the most current of the translations of course, and Martin Schulze pointed out a possible solution of this really is a problem for the French translation.
Since you mentioned it, Debian distributes translations of section 1 manpages in the manpages-de package (but the originals go with the related packages, not with the original manpages package).
Regards,
Joey
Unless I hear some good objections these pages are likely to disappear from man-pages in the next few weeks.
I have objections Michael, sorry ;-) Of course, these man pages are really to old!
Je vais ptêt dire un truc très con, je sais pas trop comment marchent les man. Mais est-ce que ça serait pas possible de garder lesdites manpages dans un machin genre man.deprecated sur lequel on ne tombe que si vraiment ya rien d'autre sur le système ? Comme ça on les garde QUAND MEME, sans qu'elles restent forcément dans le mainstream, et qu'on doit pouvoir foutre un disclaimer en haut de la page en disant "cette page est une pauvre page orpheline qui cherche un gentil mainteneur pour l'adopter"...
Et c'est vraiment si intraduisible que ça les pages info ? Je me rends pas compte du tout en fait. Pb technique réel ou plus "c'est vraiment le bordel" ?
(Note bien que je cherche pas à troller de bon matin, je me renseigne ;) )
Isa
Le Friday 11 May 2007 11:44:18 Isabelle Hurbain, vous avez écrit :
Unless I hear some good objections these pages are likely to disappear from man-pages in the next few weeks.
I have objections Michael, sorry ;-) Of course, these man pages are really to old!
Je vais ptêt dire un truc très con, je sais pas trop comment marchent les man. Mais est-ce que ça serait pas possible de garder lesdites manpages dans un machin genre man.deprecated sur lequel on ne tombe que si vraiment ya rien d'autre sur le système ? Comme ça on les garde QUAND MEME, sans qu'elles restent forcément dans le mainstream, et qu'on doit pouvoir foutre un disclaimer en haut de la page en disant "cette page est une pauvre page orpheline qui cherche un gentil mainteneur pour l'adopter"...
Apparemment, il n'y a pas beaucoup de volontaires ;-)
Les pages de la section 1 étant des pages sur les commandes utilisateur, elles ne devraient pas se trouver dans le paquet man-pages mais dans les paquets fournissant les commandes qu'elles documentent. Andries Brouwer les a intégrées dans son paquet car le projet GNU a décidé un jour de ne plus maintenir les pages man en tant que telles (les pages sont construites à partir de l'aide (--help) de la commande) et a axé la documentation sur le format info. S'il l'a fait, c'est qu'il préférait, comme moi, le format man au format info. Mais cela représente un gros travail que de maintenir ces pages en allant chercher l'information dans les pages info.
Les pages existent donc dans leur paquet d'origine, à jour, mais très incomplètes.
En ce qui concerne la version française, Christophe Blaess maintenait beaucoup de pages qui n'étaient même pas dans man-pages. Lorsque j'ai décidé de synchroniser la version française à la version originale, j'ai créé une archive man-pages-extras-fr afin de ne pas perdre le travail précédent. Donc, de toute façon, lorsque Mickael supprimera les pages de la section, dans la version française, ces pages basculeront dans l'archive extras.
Et c'est vraiment si intraduisible que ça les pages info ? Je me rends pas compte du tout en fait. Pb technique réel ou plus "c'est vraiment le bordel" ?
J'ai exagéré en disant intraduisible, cela doit pouvoir se faire, au prix d'un gros travail car il faut évidemment apprendre la syntaxe texinfo et compiler régulièrement le fichier pour vérifier que l'on ne casse pas la syntaxe. Et la question est : « Comment afficher la version française de ces pages ? » Car quelque chose me dit que le projet GNU n'a pas prévu internationalisation de cette documentation. Si je suis mauvaise langue et que je me trompe, faites-le moi savoir.
(Note bien que je cherche pas à troller de bon matin, je me renseigne ;) )
Trollons, trollons ! Sur les formats man et info...
Alain
Le vendredi 11 mai 2007 à 12:18 +0200, Alain PORTAL a écrit :
Le Friday 11 May 2007 11:44:18 Isabelle Hurbain, vous avez écrit :
Et c'est vraiment si intraduisible que ça les pages info ? Je me rends pas compte du tout en fait. Pb technique réel ou plus "c'est vraiment le bordel" ?
J'ai exagéré en disant intraduisible, cela doit pouvoir se faire, au prix d'un gros travail car il faut évidemment apprendre la syntaxe texinfo et compiler régulièrement le fichier pour vérifier que l'on ne casse pas la syntaxe. Et la question est : « Comment afficher la version française de ces pages ? » Car quelque chose me dit que le projet GNU n'a pas prévu internationalisation de cette documentation. Si je suis mauvaise langue et que je me trompe, faites-le moi savoir.
D'après [1], le mainteneur actuel de Texinfo, Karl Berry, ne dispose pas d'assez de temps pour continuer à développer seul le projet, il effectue des corrections de bogues et intègre de petites contributions. J'ai bien envoyé une requête à la liste bug-texinfo [3] concernant
Il est dommage que Texinfo ne soit pas plus activement développé, vu la longueur de la liste TODO [2], notamment en ce qui concerne l'internationalisation. Je me demande si la FSF ne pourrait pas soutenir un peu plus le développement d'un système essentiel à un des piliers de tout logiciel : une bonne documentation !
Je ne suis pas particulièrement programmeur, mais j'ai réussi avec l'aide des développeurs de LilyPond à mettre en place techniquement la traduction du manuel Texinfo avec une sortie HTML de qualité, et les traducteurs français, espagnol et allemand sont bien rôdés là-dessus. J'espère pouvoir mettre en place les sorties PDF et Info cet été. Je ne désespère pas qu'un jour, Texinfo profite de cette expérience pour vraiment être internationalisé, avec un peu de ma participation, mais bon ça pour l'instant c'est du vaporware...
[1] http://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/ [2] http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/texinfo/texinfo/TODO?rev=HEAD
[3] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2007-02/msg00009.html ou si vous préférez lire des messages non brouillés par l'anti-spammeur, la mbox des archives du mois se trouve à ftp://lists.gnu.org/bug-texinfo/2007-02
(Note bien que je cherche pas à troller de bon matin, je me
renseigne ;) )
Trollons, trollons ! Sur les formats man et info...
Si je peux nourrir le troll, la syntaxe des sources man est plus simple que Texinfo certes, mais les deux systèmes de documentation sont complètement différents : les pages man sont de longueur raisonnable et sont lues par simple défilement sur l'écran, alors que Texinfo permet de produire à partir d'une seule source non seulement des pages Info (on peut aller sans problème jusqu'à des centaines de pages avec 5 niveaux de sectionnement), mais aussi des pages HTML, DocBook ou un PDF avec TeX. Bref, ces deux systèmes sont complémentaires, il me semble préférable de continuer à maintenir des pages man courtes pour une référence rapide (quitte à les générer avec help2man ou à partir de la doc Texinfo), et de rentrer dans les détails dans la documentation Texinfo.
Je suis assez d'accord avec Alain pour dire que le lecteur de pages Info n'est pas très pratique ; la lecture des pages Info est beaucoup plus conviviale avec Emacs (C-h i), voire pour les fans de KDE avec Konqueror (info://).
En réalité, il est déjà tout à fait possible de traduire de la documentation Texinfo, tout le problème est d'intégrer les traductions entre elles : installation de pages Info dans plusieurs langues, passage d'une langue à l'autre sur chaque page, sélection automatique de la langue comme les pages man. Implémenter ceci est tout à fait faisable, mais il faut retravailler toute la chaîne de programmes : makeinfo et les lecteurs de pages Info (info et ses dérivés, Emacs, Konqueror, ...) Il y a aussi le problème des codages de caractères, mais l'UTF-8 est maintenant pris en charge, au moins partiellement : les sorties TeX/PDF et HTML ne devraient poser aucun problème, par contre si ma mémoire est bonne Info ne prend pas encore en charge UTF-8.
Bien cordialement
Le Friday 11 May 2007 15:38:20 Emmanuel Seyman, vous avez écrit :
- Alain PORTAL [11/05/2007 09:33] :
- man pages are really easy to use, not info pages...
Moi, j'ai ça dans mon ~/.bashrc :
function mani () { info $1 --subnodes --output - | less; }
Je vais faire la même chose ;-) Merci !
Alain
-
Alain PORTAL -
Alain PORTAL -
Andries Brouwer -
Emmanuel Seyman -
Isabelle Hurbain -
John Mandereau -
Martin Schulze -
Michael Kerrisk -
Mike Frysinger