Manpages for binaries not in $PATH - Debian

This is a discussion on Manpages for binaries not in $PATH - Debian ; Hi all, I'm trying to cut down john's bugs [0], and I've encountered #132223 [1]. As the previous maintainer did, I would have marked that bug as wontfix, because a normal user shouldn't normally run programs not in $PATH. However, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Manpages for binaries not in $PATH

  1. Manpages for binaries not in $PATH

    Hi all,
    I'm trying to cut down john's bugs [0], and I've encountered #132223 [1]. As
    the previous maintainer did, I would have marked that bug as wontfix, because a
    normal user shouldn't normally run programs not in $PATH. However, re-reading
    the Policy, it states:

    +==> ยง12.1
    | Each program, utility, and function should have an associated manual page
    | included in the same package. It is suggested that all configuration files
    | also have a manual page included as well. Manual pages for protocols and other
    | auxiliary things are optional.
    +==========

    This suggests that it should have a manpage. But, it's a *should*. On the other
    hand, I know that many "entities" which are not in $PATH have their own manpage
    -- see for example Perl modules.

    How should I behave here?

    Kindly,
    David

    [0] http://bugs.debian.org/john
    [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=132223

    --
    . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
    : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
    `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
    `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD4DBQFIJdjv5qqQFxOSsXQRAnteAJj/+JsNTWx5YpF+3f4soB1eEoXBAKCOAD01
    0ozQS1fXXhlnvU4AEQG6bA==
    =0oE/
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  2. Re: Manpages for binaries not in $PATH

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFIJd0Bvse/O6JvVMgRAtJiAJ91u1UfqhlSVU9kZSZGwkHYroJHZgCeKRGp
    wO3kQ4WXW1PXmtHujLrftwI=
    =FEzh
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  3. Re: Manpages for binaries not in $PATH

    On Sun, 11 May 2008 00:36:00 +0700, Mikhail Gusarov wrote:

    > Twas brillig at 19:18:39 10.05.2008 UTC+02 when David Paleino did gyre and
    > gimble:
    >
    > DP> How should I behave here?
    >
    > I'd treat john-any and john-mmx as parts of program - merely
    > implementation details.


    That's what I thought. Thus, john.8 should suffice for both.

    I'll wait for any other response before acting on the bug.

    Thanks,
    David

    --
    . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
    : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
    `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
    `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD4DBQFIJd5G5qqQFxOSsXQRAlCfAJikKe9gB5s4TBC2xTpJHY zRh16RAJ4snrKJ
    MI8xMFnvda6PIIKrfERHYA==
    =IF5n
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  4. Re: Manpages for binaries not in $PATH

    On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 07:18:39PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
    >This suggests that it should have a manpage. But, it's a *should*. On the other
    >hand, I know that many "entities" which are not in $PATH have their own manpage
    >-- see for example Perl modules.
    >
    >How should I behave here?


    I think the obvious answer makes your question moot: combine the two
    into one binary and benchmark to decide what to do, as suggested in
    251259.

    If you're not willing to do that, then the prudent decision is to decide
    whether the user ever needs to run the program manually. In the case of
    cpp-4.3, you never need to run cc1 (since it is an implementation
    detail), so it does not require a manpage. It seems that in the case of
    john, the main executable cannot figure out which implementation is
    better, so the user may need to run the program manually. Thus it needs
    a manpage.

    IANADD.

    --
    brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
    +1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only
    troff on top of XML: http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc/code/thwack
    OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iQIVAwUBSCXg679TXYEfUvaLAQKxdQ//Ssit2zw9dPyp2rHWp04yQNPOSw+gPabu
    nhop2a/YU++7/m/VstsHAfow/QdnP3P2jwnnwmi6w3uVXonEE1+9GNfP2kzKfLcg
    Hv0zRk8JEhhBgO6k4qtI69Sy27yH8jpDe2W1AvREnKzAV7L2AF D4iNUHXOX0RaBc
    0F6ofwlX4YhtdmFLJNLJW/+FCAitV/v72NDDu/AMiaDDSxZIDqQ1mrBleOU/xN35
    zZTfRNkPcsY7tS9nGDoLA6h7sW1RaDoD+EDp4drtGMqrX/+HZ1bSpZ5GPRVGGr+f
    +eP/P949x21cUgFzRZyC6KtwCrcpTZzk7J4b/cgA99i+rrvKOxiYDbbW2+wZ+of3
    d0tUJfdyzc7I/i7ZkFhchYmmTpX5u8FO2+BdxDyc4wRXsGTal/Zlk7CaL1o97Qbe
    2VCdkhvQZthxpqa21VsX5Z7RLG3wDnSHOFGW+O7XzGAqNNx29B VjSYfD9XtoxML1
    52G3XGPZnj7HW/n3WRDGjaM749m6rOwlC97FVZOTRWN8CrbABvbKAO0CnRYPpN0W
    EmKte8Sf0Svpi6AACZlQjJHeAuw2Dkz1La9oa/P1YGayd7bfJ/GWsOQjtI6D2rmB
    25qXhMeTMC1XuQglPOwaJTl//AS0Tc6wDNmvmZNsJLCVqHWs08yXPOMCHqK8w/pz
    nGV8W6YBLUU=
    =KL/F
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  5. Re: Manpages for binaries not in $PATH

    On Sat, 10 May 2008 17:52:43 +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:

    > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 07:18:39PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
    > >This suggests that it should have a manpage. But, it's a *should*. On the
    > >other hand, I know that many "entities" which are not in $PATH have their
    > >own manpage -- see for example Perl modules.
    > >
    > >How should I behave here?

    >
    > I think the obvious answer makes your question moot: combine the two
    > into one binary and benchmark to decide what to do, as suggested in
    > 251259.


    Uhm, yes. That's what I should've done before, sorry for not noticing. I'll
    work on that ASAP.

    > It seems that in the case of john, the main executable cannot figure out
    > which implementation is better, so the user may need to run the program
    > manually. Thus it needs a manpage.


    Also john-any and john-mmx might be seen as "implementation details". Thus I'm
    now thinking at a single manpage, with symlinks for john-mmx and john-any.
    However, before doing this, I should decide whether to keep this separationor
    not.

    > IANADD.


    Me neither, but I don't believe one needs to be a DD to read the Policy and
    think

    Thanks,
    David

    --
    . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
    : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
    `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
    `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFIJeWT5qqQFxOSsXQRAvpzAJ0fkuvN3zShN9nq4Hhvrw vfabuRxACgwFLS
    lEPki0jF9/62p8D9dffxSSg=
    =UojS
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  6. Re: Manpages for binaries not in $PATH

    David Paleino writes:

    > On Sun, 11 May 2008 00:36:00 +0700, Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
    >
    >> Twas brillig at 19:18:39 10.05.2008 UTC+02 when David Paleino did gyre and
    >> gimble:
    >>
    >> DP> How should I behave here?
    >>
    >> I'd treat john-any and john-mmx as parts of program - merely
    >> implementation details.

    >
    > That's what I thought. Thus, john.8 should suffice for both.
    >
    > I'll wait for any other response before acting on the bug.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > David


    Can't you set an alias for john-any and john-mmx to john.8? One page
    to rule them all.

    MfG
    Goswin


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread