Re: non-configurable?

David Mihm (
Sat, 4 Sep 1999 12:22:33 -0500 (CDT)

On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Gregory T. Norris wrote:

>On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 12:02:28PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> One of the great disadvantages of Deb and RH package management, I think,
>> is that they usually just use the default man pages.  They shouldn't;
>> instead, they should make an addendum saying something like "Debian [or
>> whoever] varies from this man page.  See [something] for details."  The
>> /usr/doc/afterstep stuff that I've seen on my machine is just incomplete,
>> and I find it pretty annoying.
>At the risk of going off-topic, I'd suggest that you submit a bug-report
>against such packages as you encounter them.  I maintain a few minor
>Debian packages (although nothing as impressive as AfterStep :-), and
>have occasionally needed to make adjustments to the upstream settings...
>so that the location of configuration files conforms with Debian policy,
>for example.  When that occurs I make a point of ensuring that the
>manpages and other documentation get updated appropriately, for exactly
>the reasons you describe,  I can't speak for the other maintainers, but
>if someone informed me that I'd overlooked updating some documentation,
>I'd *definately* take the time to correct it.

	I think the biggest problem, is these "software conglomerators",
like Debian and Red Hat, et. al. , make these changes to the software, to
"conform" to "their" "standards", and fail to follow the GPL requirements
of making their modifications available to the people that maintain the
original software, so that either the original software maintainers can
make quality improvements or vice versa.  


| d a v i d  @  m i h m                         reality.sys corrupt! |
| davemann  @                        reboot universe(y,n)? |
| webmaster @                               ICQ:906859 |
| ftpmaster @       |
           E4 90 15 ED E5 9F 18 8A B0 CC FF 68 61 36 4A 6F