[arch-general] rc.conf man page
jtwdyp at ttlc.net
Tue Aug 24 13:35:33 EDT 2010
It would appear that on Aug 24, Dave Reisner did say:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 05:37:29PM -0400, David Campbell wrote:
> > I like this manpage, although, I am not so sure it is wise to
> > have a manpage for rc.conf. rc.conf is well commented, and if
> > there is a manpage, the two will have to be kept in sync with
> > each other. Having the code with the documentation also makes
> > understanding the documentation easier. I suggest either adding
> > to the comments in rc.conf if they are not sufficient, or leaving
> > out of the manpage information that can already be found in
> > rc.conf.
> My concern is that /etc/rc.conf is mutable, while a man page is not. AIF
> uses this commenting as guidance, but it (as well as rc.conf itself)
> could just as easily say "refer to the man page".
As a mere arch user who happens to think that the concept of well
commented configuration files such as Arch's rc.conf are WONDERFUL.
Especially when they include examples for beginners and those of us who
have difficulty remembering. ;-7
My only concerns about having a man page is that eventually the
configuration file (in this case rc.conf) might gradually become less well
commented, or it's comments become outdated. And that man pages tend to
be long on highly technical explanations that I for one have a hard time
understanding and are often short on examples. So rather than having the
rc.conf refer to a man page for instruction on how to use it. I'd much
prefer that the primary method of "guidance" remain in the rc.local and
perhaps include in any man page a url from which one can download a
current rc.local.example file.
But like I said. I'm only a user, not a developer, so I don't know that my
concerns count for much.
| ~^~ ~^~
| <*> <*> Joe (theWordy) Philbrook
| ^ J(tWdy)P
| \___/ <<jtwdyp at ttlc.net>>
More information about the arch-general