[rfc] [cedtea-web] upated javawsman page was: Re: [rfc][icedtea-web] javaws -version flag

Jiri Vanek jvanek at redhat.com
Fri Mar 7 10:44:41 UTC 2014

Some updates to javaws man page.. Is there any voulenteer for icedtea-web, policyeditor and 
itw-settings ? :))

On 03/06/2014 07:00 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
> * Jiri Vanek <jvanek at redhat.com> [2014-03-06 12:30]:
>> No. You misunderstood me completely. The will to maintain them is
>> missing. I 100% agree that they are necessary.
> Ah, well that's a different matter. I will try and help.
>> On 03/06/2014 05:52 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
>>> * Jiri Vanek<jvanek at redhat.com>  [2014-03-06 11:29]:
>>>>   First half of previous 8 months I was ignoring them willingly,
>>>>   because I hoped to have the generated ones prepared for 1.5.
>>> I don't know if generated ones are the magic bullet you think they are.
>>> Either way you have to write the documentation. And some parts of the
>>> documentation don't belong in code. Still, generated or not, we need
>>> some place where users can find documentation.
>> 100% yes, and the man pages are th way to go.
>> They may be the magic bullet if I fulfil my idea.
> Fair enough. My original suggestion was: let's add a tiny fix (document
> -version) while we wait for the bigger (and better) fix (the
> auto-generated man pages).
>> Right. Right now there is only javaws.1 Imho two more are misisng. And
>> manpage for "package name" is good recomandation.
> I am not so sure. `man man` says:
> "man is the system's manual pager. Each page argument given to man is
> normally the name of a program, utility or function"
> `javaws` qualifies as a program, but does icedtea-web?
> Isn't a README the more appropriate place for this? Do you know of
> examples where there is a man page for a package where package name is
> different from the binary name?
> Any way, if you want to add more documentation and maintain it, that's
> perfectly fine with me :)
>> It can be jsut see javaws + expalinig alternatives, or something more
>> general. Also it may be spec patch only.
> *If* we decide that this it not very useful upstream, maybe we should
> encourage downstream to follow?
>>>> , itw-settings manpage is missing - and
>>>> it is HUGE man page, and newly policyeditor is missing.
>>> For self-explanatory GUIs, I am not sure we need detailed man pages.
>>> They mostly make sense for command line programs that take lots of
>> Self expalantory???  The itw-settings have incredible cmd line support!
> Haha. I wrote that :)
> I meant that it's fairly simple to document the cli bits (there's only 4
> or so commands, right) and the GUI is self-explanatory. So the man page
> shouldn't be that large.
> Thanks,
> Omair

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: minorFixes-man.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 3236 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/attachments/20140307/39487d7d/minorFixes-man.patch 

More information about the distro-pkg-dev mailing list