Re: GNU rm's man page doesn't name chattr as a "See Also" program

[Craig Carey]

You have not actually just asked a question.

Firstly my previous message has vanished largely without trace and it
had arguments in it.

Secondly your reasoning is apparently not there since you brief
text is not balancing recognizably two scenarios. Unreal reasoning
or none. The words 'balancing reasoning' could sound like something
too artificial, but it is plain from your text that you did not
venture to construct or estimate, and then compare, the two (unless
more) alternatives.

Thirdly the argument (or what's there) is obviously distant from facts,
A fact is that the Ext2 is very prevalant in the minor world of free
Unix clone operating systems.

Forthly, you are painting yourself into the position of getting from
the details of what your idealism should be while at the same time
using only one and bit lines of text. Certainly a *BSD persons might
find it very simple to tell a GNU loopy what their proper idealisms
ought be. E.g. not this: filing [2 meanings] the project down to
nearly nothing without the FSF finding out.

Fifthly, if extra words are needed since it is not GNU, then extra
words can be added. It parallels the main argument in that here too
I ask for more words and you hoped for less or no change.

Sixthly, I read a page by the Mr Richard Stallman which said that
volunteers were need to create the GNU documentation. What starts
as hopes can later become FSF policies. I will avoid that topic of
the productivity of the FSF document engineers.

Seventh, as I indicated I was leaving comparing your performance
with that of the FreeBSD project. As that inevitable, the response
from the FreeBSD people precise. It took them about 1 day 50 minutes
to perform that obviously reasonable action. They are just the
sort of people to whom I can't make criticism number 4 other.

Here is the CVS diff confirming that the change was been made is
here (version 1.27,  dated 8:38 pm 5th Feb 2003, GMT):

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/bin/rm/rm.1.diff?r1=1.26&r2=1.27&f=h

This text was added: ".Xr chflags 1 ,"

Eighthly, the GNU project is defending its observable 'in action'
trait of taking a stubborn stand over data loss. Normally it just
causes it (Glitchix). I suppose I should avoid repeating any part of
the facts that you have already overlooked.

I am trying to get another project to abandon the GNU licence and
thus I selected a dispute over the core principles of FSF-ism
persistent ongoing data loss. IBM (not mentionable since not GNU)
seemed to fix that. But here is the core object is the deleting
utility: and missing data in documents. If it was a bug in Perl,
then I'd check out the patch program. Here I want to get the ASCL
project to quite the GPL and I suppose it going to happen.


Ninethly, there was no consideration of persons that use the 'rm'
manual. Should they flock into Usenet since you yourself didn't
name chattr. We can infer your answer from your reasoning. To
keep the message varied the next one could be:
(a) written by someone else;  or
(b) so reasonable that the FSF policy on having "See Also"
   sections in 'man' documents (excluding 'rm') be unhelpful, could
   tasted and believed.





At 03\02\04 12:27 +0100 Tuesday, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>   A defect in the 'man' reference manual document of the 'rm' program,
>   is that it does not name the 'chattr' program.
>
>Why should it even name chattr?  chattr differs from file-system to
>file-system.
>
>   Each GNU manual document fails to name other GNU reference documents.
>
>chattr is not a GNU program.

Can you remember the page number holding the policy or the date you
received the policy from the FSF/GNU lot ?. I guess not.


>
>   files that are larger than the filesystem but good enough for the GNU
>   fsck program.
>
>There is no such program by that name.

Append text to get the name of the fsck program.

I only missed out part of the name and you were helpless without the
full text of the name. A slip up and now you have blown up your case.


You seem to be responding to a discovery that I withheld information,
but it was only a few letters in the full name of the fsck program.

Is there a principle against withholding details from FSF mailing
lists?.

I suppose I can't get FreeBSD onside without having OpenBSD and
NetBSD too. Also there is AIX, HP, Sun Solaris, Darwin, and so on.

Which would be cold brained enough to permit the problem to remain.


Tenthly:
I didn't see an argument on the significance of "chattr" not being
a GNU program?. No need to answer that: the question seems to be
one with an uninteresting answer (I presume).




Craig Carey