Re: [cc65] Request to rename the make.sgml to cc65make.sgml

From: Ullrich von Bassewitz <uz1musoftware.de>
Date: 2010-11-08 19:00:18
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 04:48:43PM +0200, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
> Info pages (and man pages) are usually easier to find.  Suppose I have
> to use tool ``xyz`` then it is easy to type ``info xyz`` or ``man
> xyz``.  To find the HTML docs for it I have to find out which package
> it is in and where this package placed the "non-standard" documentation
> formats.

Sorry, I didn't realize that someone is actually using the info files. I have
rarely seen anything more badly designed than info pages and the tools to read
them. The info viewer is a usability nightmare and comes close to dpkg, which
is my all time favorite for the software with the worst user interface ever.

There has already been a request to rename grc, because there is another
application named grc in /usr/bin. Ok, I'm willing to accept, that publically
visible executables should have unique names. But the idea that this is also
true for accompanied info files makes me somewhat upset. cc65 comes with 35
info files, and more may follow. It is against all reason to require all info
files world wide to have different names. This requirement was probably
established by the same guys who invented the info file format and wrote the
info viewer. At least this would explain it to me.

Oliver has already offered to rename the file in question, so since there seem
to be actual users, I would agree to do it. May it be cc65make.{sgml,info} or
whatever.

End of rant. Oliver, thanks for the offer!


        Uz


-- 
Ullrich von Bassewitz                                  uz@musoftware.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
Received on Mon Nov 8 19:00:24 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2010-11-08 19:00:29 CET