This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] pldd.1: Document glibc's unbreakage of tool.
- From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com, "G. Branden Robinson" <g dot branden dot robinson at gmail dot com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, linux-man <linux-man at vger dot kernel dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 21:32:59 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] pldd.1: Document glibc's unbreakage of tool.
- References: <20190511072049.2w7pp723iszp3gra@localhost.localdomain> <8736liit24.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <20190513141746.mail6ny43wh4t5oj@localhost.localdomain> <87y335m6fq.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <20190517155057.vr5uk6hfkyp44y3t@localhost.localdomain> <CAEMqeSrCMFZ8GQU=kR_+KXaqnd9m-3qUSQk1PNZ2xHjZ_YVHFg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1905201651260.2935@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
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@gmail.com> 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 What's more of an issue is when the BUGS section gets out of date or the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/