From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?B?U3TDqXBoYW5l?= Aulery Subject: Re: dash.1 - Confusion between two pages c[h]sh Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 21:54:29 +0100 Message-ID: <20141111205429.GA13797@free.fr> References: <20141110132742.GA8481@gondor.apana.org.au> <5460D391.2090603@gigawatt.nl> <20141111072046.GA15725@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from smtp3-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.3]:20172 "EHLO smtp3-g21.free.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751306AbaKKU4I (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 15:56:08 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141111072046.GA15725@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: dash-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: dash@vger.kernel.org To: Herbert Xu Cc: Harald van Dijk , dash@vger.kernel.org, 646847@bugs.debian.org Le mardi 11 novembre 2014 =C3=A0 03:20:46, Herbert Xu a =C3=A9crit : > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 04:02:41PM +0100, Harald van Dijk wrote: > >=20 > > Even if csh is intentionally in the "See also" section despite not > > being referenced anywhere else, is it also intentional that chsh is > > not in that section despite the earlier reference? Would a patch > > that leaves csh but also adds chsh be more appropriate, or do you > > prefer to leave it as it is now? >=20 > The see also section is not meant to be an exhaustive list of > all commands referred to in the manual. It's meant to be a list > of manual entries related to dash. So no I'm not going to add > chsh there just because there was an earlier reference. Ok, I leave the bug open because it also relates to the numbering of file descriptors. Cheers, --=20 St=C3=A9phane Aulery