This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: For review: memusage(1) man page
- From: ams at gnu dot org (Alfred M. Szmidt)
- To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>
- Cc: jchaloup at redhat dot com, mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com, linux-man at vger dot kernel dot org, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, myllynen at redhat dot com, drepper at gmail dot com, pschiffe at redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:39:00 -0400
- Subject: Re: For review: memusage(1) man page
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <53C8E244 dot 2080901 at redhat dot com> <E1X84Kh-00041J-2z at fencepost dot gnu dot org> <53CE004A dot 3060706 at gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: ams at gnu dot org
Jan, are you willing to assign copyright for those documenation bits
to the FSF? I'll happily convert them into texinfo.
I must say that this is an odd position to take. While it would be
nice to have documentation in the glibc manual, the glibc
developers did not bother to add anything to the manual when
writing these interfaces, so it hardly seems like anyone else is
obligated to do so (assuming that person wanted to even jump the
CLA hurdle...). In any case, man pages does (good) pages that
describe the libc interfaces (including commands).
Someone sends a useful patch for glibc, but glibc is not documented
using man pages so the natural thing is to have it in a format that
can be accepted into glibc.
What is odd is to dismiss such a contribution and start making excuses
as to why one should not "bother" updating the offical, and canonical
documentation for glibc. And accusing people because they "couldn't
be bothered" is quite an unfriendly attidue. We all have things to
do, and only have so much time to try and do everything.