doc/man vs etc

doc/man vs etc

[Eli Zaretskii]

Some of the man pages are still in etc/, AFAICS.  Why weren't they
moved to doc/man, together with those which were moved?

Re: doc/man vs etc

[Andreas Schwab]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> Some of the man pages are still in etc/, AFAICS.  Why weren't they
> moved to doc/man, together with those which were moved?

Three of them are just jokes, so I don't think they belong to doc/man.
Of the remaining ones the gfdl manpage is not distributed.  Not sure
about the emacstool manpage, but the emacstool sources haven't been
touched for a long time (last real change in 1993), so it probably bit
rotted quite a bit.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: doc/man vs etc

[David Kastrup]

Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Some of the man pages are still in etc/, AFAICS.  Why weren't they
>> moved to doc/man, together with those which were moved?
>
> Three of them are just jokes, so I don't think they belong to
> doc/man.  Of the remaining ones the gfdl manpage is not distributed.
> Not sure about the emacstool manpage, but the emacstool sources
> haven't been touched for a long time (last real change in 1993), so
> it probably bit rotted quite a bit.

We have a CVS archive when people want to get historic material.  As
far as I can tell, the SunView (?) versions for which this would have
been interesting are no longer in use.  I guess we should just throw
the emacstool stuff out.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: doc/man vs etc

[Richard Stallman]

I am pretty sure emacstool is obsolete.  It was used with SunStools.
I think we can delete it.

Re: doc/man vs etc

[Glenn Morris]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Some of the man pages are still in etc/, AFAICS.  Why weren't they
> moved to doc/man, together with those which were moved?

Because they don't get installed, except as part of the etc/
directory. If they were moved to doc/man, they would no longer be part
of an installed Emacs. IMO, none of them are worth installing in the
actual MANPATH (or if they are, it's not the job of Emacs to provide
`man sex' hilarity).

Re: doc/man vs etc

[Jay Belanger]

Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:
...
> (or if they are, it's not the job of Emacs to provide `man sex'
> hilarity). 

But you'll need Emacs if you want `(M-x) woman sex'.

Jay

Re: doc/man vs etc

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Glenn Morris wrote:

>> Some of the man pages are still in etc/, AFAICS.  Why weren't they
>> moved to doc/man, together with those which were moved?

> Because they don't get installed, except as part of the etc/
> directory. If they were moved to doc/man, they would no longer be part
> of an installed Emacs. IMO, none of them are worth installing in the
> actual MANPATH (or if they are, it's not the job of Emacs to provide
> `man sex' hilarity).

Please note that at least in Gentoo and Debian some of these man pages
are also provided by package "funny-manpages". So if Emacs would
install them in MANPATH there would be collisions. Please leave them
in etc/.

Ulrich

Re: doc/man vs etc

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:13:10 -0400
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Some of the man pages are still in etc/, AFAICS.  Why weren't they
> > moved to doc/man, together with those which were moved?
> 
> Because they don't get installed, except as part of the etc/
> directory. If they were moved to doc/man, they would no longer be part
> of an installed Emacs. IMO, none of them are worth installing in the
> actual MANPATH (or if they are, it's not the job of Emacs to provide
> `man sex' hilarity).

Funny you'd think my concerns were about sex.6.

Actually, I was thinking more about gfdl.1: some files in etc/ and
elsewhere used to refer to it (that's why it was introduced in the
first place, IIRC).  If no file refers to it nowadays, maybe we should
just delete it.

Re: doc/man vs etc

[Glenn Morris]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Actually, I was thinking more about gfdl.1: some files in etc/ and
> elsewhere used to refer to it (that's why it was introduced in the
> first place, IIRC).  If no file refers to it nowadays, maybe we should
> just delete it.

According to the ChangeLog, emacs.1, etags.1, emacstool.1 were indeed
briefly licensed under the GFDL, but now they just have simple
permission statements. So it does look like etc/gfdl.1 can be removed.

Re: doc/man vs etc

[Romain Francoise]

Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:

> So it does look like etc/gfdl.1 can be removed.

Doubly so because it's not included in release tarballs, make-dist
explicitly skips it.

Re: doc/man vs etc

[Glenn Morris]

Romain Francoise wrote:

> Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> So it does look like etc/gfdl.1 can be removed.
>
> Doubly so because it's not included in release tarballs, make-dist
> explicitly skips it.

OK; it's gone. People can read the GFDL in the info pages.