man pages

[Vincent Danen]

* Panu Matilainen <pmatilai at laiskiainen.org> [2006-06-07 23:34:50 +0300]:

> > It actually depends on which program you look at... =)  I looked at a
> > few, and this felt more right to my eye on the case of conditional input
> > is what's bolded... the primary command (upgrade, install, remove, etc.)
> > is fairly static, so I left it as is (unbolded), but the "pkg(s)" or
> > "regex" or whatnot is the actual user "input" (if you will) to the
> > command, which is why I elected to bold it.  Initially it was all bold,
> > which just felt wrong (there should be some separation).
> > 
> > Either way, doesn't matter.  I can invert things so that the command is
> > bold and the arguments not (and let's not even think about command bold
> > and argument underlined as that's just plain wrong).
> 
> Of course it's just a matter of taste and such, to me the arguments in
> bold and command in normal text just feels backwards :) Even both in
> non-bold would feel less weird I suppose.

Fair enough.

> > > Btw, "source" and "build-dep" commands always require an argument, and
> > > additionally "update" can take arguments (what source lists to update). 
> > > Oh well, we'll need to comb through the content with some extra care
> > > anyway, there are quite a few things that are simply wrong (for apt-rpm)
> > > in the Debian originals and then varying degrees of nonsensibility,
> > > unclearness and whatnot. 
> > 
> > Yeah... I tried to clean up what I felt was wrong and knew what was
> > right, but being not completely familiar with apt yet, I didn't want to
> > start making guesses and messing things up more than they already were.
> > My first/initial job was to get the basics done and in such a way that
> > you could expand on them, add new stuff as you add the code, get other
> > eyes looking at it who know apt better than I and can easily adjust the
> > manpages to make the more accurate.
> 
> Sure - the above wasn't a criticism to you, just commenting on the
> current state of the doc contents. We'll clean the stuff up
> eventually :)

Oh, I know... and this is a good first step.

> > > So, I'd be happier if you could "fix" the boldness in commands eg 
> > > .TP
> > > upgrade
> > > 
> > > -->
> > > .TP
> > > \fBupgrade\fR
> > 
> > Well, if you would still like me to change them after you've read my
> > explanation above, I'd be happy to do so.
> 
> Others don't seem to have opinion about this (or at least strong
> opinions) so .. I still personally prefer the commands in bold and
> arguments in normal text.

A new apt-get.8 is attached.  The rest are ok?

-- 
{FEE30AD4 : 7F6C A60C 06C2 4811 FA1C  A2BC 2EBC 5E32 FEE3 0AD4}
mysql> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0;
Empty set (0.00sec)
:: Annvix - Secure Linux Server: http://annvix.org/ ::
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: apt-get.8.bz2
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 5133 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.laiskiainen.org/pipermail/apt-rpm-laiskiainen.org/attachments/20060608/ce405130/attachment-0003.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.laiskiainen.org/pipermail/apt-rpm-laiskiainen.org/attachments/20060608/ce405130/attachment-0003.pgp>