|Summary:||Shipping incorrect or out-of-date docs is unprofessional|
|Product:||[Retired] Red Hat Linux||Reporter:||tchrist|
|Component:||man-pages||Assignee:||Trond Eivind Glomsrxd <teg>|
|Status:||CLOSED NOTABUG||QA Contact:|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2000-05-30 16:59:32 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description tchrist 1999-10-22 17:18:34 UTC
Something that reads: This documentation is no longer being maintained and may be inaccurate or incomplete. The Texinfo documentation is now the authoritative source. just *has* to be fixed! Here's a list of such evil pages: basename.1 cat.1 chroot.1 cksum.1 comm.1 csplit.1 cut.1 date.1 dirname.1 echo.1 env.1 expand.1 expr.1 false.1 fmt.1 fold.1 groups.1 head.1 id.1 join.1 logname.1 md5sum.1 nice.1 nl.1 nohup.1 od.1 paste.1 pathchk.1 pr.1 printenv.1 printf.1 pwd.1 sleep.1 sort.1 split.1 stty.1 su.1 sum.1 tac.1 tail.1 tee.1 test.1 tr.1 true.1 tty.1 uname.1 unexpand.1 uniq.1 users.1 wc.1 who.1 whoami.1 yes.1 It's completely unprofessional to ship a manpage that says it's wrong and that you don't even intend to fix it! Ok, I realize that it's not your software. It's the FSF's, and they really don't care about the POSIX.2 requirement. But the buck stops with you, because you're the system integrator. You have to find a way of shipping correct and up-to-date versions of those manpages. Possibly even the FSF would accept back your fixes.
Comment 1 Cristian Gafton 2000-02-05 03:35:59 UTC
unfortunately, no, FSF is not interested in supporting man pages anymore. They want to dump them for the benefit of the info pages, whcih they argue that it is much better and easy to use. The hacks for the man pages tell you at least where to look for the information rather than leaving you in the dark...
Comment 2 Cristian Gafton 2000-05-22 15:02:59 UTC
assigned to teg
Comment 3 Trond Eivind Glomsrxd 2000-05-30 16:59:59 UTC
This is not a bug, this is FSF. I really dislike it, but there's not much we can do about it.
Comment 4 tchrist 2000-06-06 14:02:18 UTC
Apparently you and I disagree about the responsibility of a vendor to ship integrated, documented, and tested products. You simply grab whatever you feel like, stuff it into your "product", and ship it. It is completely unimproved. In a feat worthy of Pontius Pilate, you then attempt to wash your hands of all responsibility here, pretending that there's nothing you can or should do about such an embarrassing situation. Shame on you! You are the vendor. The buck stops at YOUR doorstep. This is a fine demonstration of why Redhat doesn't merit serious consideration as a system vendor. You aren't. If it's crap to start with, you leave it as crap. No vendor would dare shove such an attitude down the customers' and investors' throats, but apparently in this Brave New World of Open Sores Software, you think it's normal that there be no care or concern toward QUALITY. You can be sure that I will cite this case as a demonstration to journalists. WTFM.