docs/55653: chflags.1 - note that not all tools chflags aware.

[Tony Maher]

The following reply was made to PR docs/55653; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Tony Maher <tonymaher at optushome.com.au>
To: tonymaher at optushome.com.au, underway at comcast.net
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit at freebsd.org
Subject: Re: docs/55653: chflags.1 - note that not all tools chflags aware.
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:00:45 +1000 (EST)

 Hello,
 
 thanks for feedback.
 
 >> +.Sh BUGS
 >
 > The warning note would be better placed in a custom WARNING (or NOTES)
 > section, or in a standard COMPATIBILITY section or even in the
 > DESCRIPTION.  It's not about a chflags(1) bug.  The fact that other
 > manpages abuse their BUGS section is no reason for this one to do it.
 
 I agree but the example man pages I looked at used bugs.
 But I dont care how its done, I'll leave it up to a docs person.
 
 > It's debatable whether any of these tools/utilities/programs should be
 > listed in the manpage, mainly because it adds a continual source of
 > manpage bugs as file flags and their support changes from time to
 > time.  Also, the info would, to be consistent, need to be added to
 > chflags(2) and other manpages that deal with file flags.
 >
 > I tend to like helpful manpages, but in this case I think it's better
 > to limit that help to the generic warning note and put these lists of
 > programs in a Handbook "File Flags" section, if anywhere.
 
 I prefer man pages since they are more accessible. I liked the info
 all in the once place so that someone reading about chflags would
 immediately be aware that there could be problems using copy mecahnisms like
 tar and pax.
 
 That said I am happy for whatever the docs people decide 
 matches best with FreeBSD docs practice.
 
 > Also: The tar(1) and pax(1) manpages should say in their BUGS sections
 > that they don't support file flags, if that's the case.
 
 That would be useful.
 
 cheers
 --
 tonym