Re: [Bug-tar] Re: tar man page

[Sergey Poznyakoff]

Hi Matthew,

> ...and I don't care for reading a tome when all I want is to know what
> option follows symlinks.

You don't need to. There is a concept index as well as option index,
which allow you to quickly find whatever you want (if they do not --
that's a call for bug report).

> man pages are IMO more readable than --help output.

Tastes differ. In my opinion both are equally awkward.

> How so? Update the build system to generate a page with help2man. That
> has to be done exactly once. (You need to also maintain --help, but
> you'd better be doing that anyway :-).)

That goes without saying :)
 
> What if the man page isn't even for GNU tar (e.g. when
> building from source on non-GNU-based OS's)?

I buy this one. This seems the only serious argument in favor of
manpages I've heard this far.

> Besides, help2man pages usually mention that "The full
> documentation for [tar] is maintained as a Texinfo manual. If the info
> and [tar] programs are properly installed at your site, the command
> 'info [tar]' should give you access to the complete manual."

IMHO, it would be more than enough if a manpage contained this text and
nothing more.

> As someone that maintains (well, used to, I haven't put as much time
> into it recently) a GNU toolchain on almost a dozen platforms based on
> from-source builds, I would much prefer if tar would follow the rest
> of the world and provide at least a basic man page.

Tar closely follows GNU standards, which clearly state that man pages
are secondary and it is maintainer's choice whether to include them or
not.

Nevertheless, thanks for the discussion. I'll re-consider the pro's and
con's.

Regards,
Sergey