[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#3633) slapd.access man page inaccuracy
On Tuesday 05 April 2005 17:48, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> I don't know if we really want to document all these
> variants, most of which exist only valid for historical
> reasons. The idea, I think, is to let them slowly
> die. That is, I think attr is not listed in slap.access(5)
> as intended.
> It should be noted that documenting "attr" would require
> more than this change. There would need to be change to the
> corresponding prose, as well as to the usage output of
> slapd(8) itself... and likely the admin guide and FAQ, too.
My patch was just a 1st step ;-)))
> Personally, I rather either do nothing here or just note
> that there exists some aliases for historical purposes
> without actually listing what those aliases are.
I am not usre if I like this solution, since it forces the admins to browse
the sources to find out whether some syntax is still allowed or not.
For me it would be sufficient to have the historical aliases listed at some
place in the appropriate man page (in this case slapd.access)
They no not need to be listed in the same place where the official names
are given. Maybe a spearate "Keyword Aliases" section can do it.