Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 6255
Shipping incorrect or out-of-date docs is unprofessional
Last modified: 2008-05-01 11:37:52 EDT
Something that reads:
This documentation is no longer being maintained and may
or incomplete. The Texinfo documentation is now the
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
dirname.1 echo.1 env.1 expand.1 expr.1 false.1 fmt.1
head.1 id.1 join.1 logname.1 md5sum.1 nice.1 nl.1
paste.1 pathchk.1 pr.1 printenv.1 printf.1 pwd.1 sleep.1
split.1 stty.1 su.1 sum.1 tac.1 tail.1 tee.1 test.1 tr.1
tty.1 uname.1 unexpand.1 uniq.1 users.1 wc.1 who.1
It's completely unprofessional to ship a manpage that says
and that you don't even intend to fix it! Ok, I realize
not your software. It's the FSF's, and they really don't
the POSIX.2 requirement. But the buck stops with you,
the system integrator. You have to find a way of shipping
up-to-date versions of those manpages. Possibly even the
accept back your fixes.
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...
assigned to teg
This is not a bug, this is FSF. I really dislike it, but there's not much we can
do about it.
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.