Subject: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-3-19-21:30
From: "Linux Activists" <[email-masked]>
To: "Linux-Activists" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 03:25:04 +0300

Topics:
	 Re:  Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-3-15-13:5

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Charlie Brady)
Subject: Re:  Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-3-15-13:5
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 23:19:44 +0300

		 splitting man(2) pages
	----------------------------------------------------------------------

	From: [email-masked] (Steven S. Dick)
	Subject: splitting man(2) pages
	Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 15:12:16 +0300

	Why are the man pages being split?

	I *LIKE* read and write on the same page, because 99% of the time I read
	the page for read, I'll be looking for the page for write right after it.

	As to fcntl, I haven't seen the split pages there.  If you split references
	to a single function, there should still be a page for that function that
	refers to all the pieces.

	Also, if you fragment a page, and end up with a bunch of pages all less than
	20 lines, then splitting it was probably silly.  (This is where info with
	subsections would have been better, but that's another argument.)

	        Steve
	[email-masked]
I agree - they shouldn't be split. My reading of the original posting suggested
that someone didn't know (or forgot) about links - a lot of man pages got lost
and only one of the many originally identical man pages remained, then rather
than restore the links, multiple copies were made, and if that is done, why
not simplify them to refer only to the "relevant" thing.

Let's have them combined, and have a link for each named function.

------------------------------

End of DOC Digest
*****************
-------