On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 01:39:21PM -0400, David Bremner wrote: > Jani Nikula writes: > > I am wondering about the man page though. I find it slightly > > confusing there would be a man page named after the tool > > describing just the config, but not the tool itself. Yeah, a man page about the tool itself would be good. If I add one, we'd have a situation like procmail(1) and procmailrc(5). One difficulty for naming the config-file-format man page is that status-config.json is not a particularly specific name. If we're renaming the tools anyway, I'd suggest we just go with ${EVENTUAL_NMBUG_STATUS_NAME}.json for the default config filename and man page. > For me it's a bit odd to have a man page for a tool we don't install > by default. Is it maybe time to "promote" nmbug-status to the > notmuch- namespace and install it by default? Sounds good to me. And Gentoo has installed it (if you've set the ‘nmbug’ USE flag [1]) since 0.11.1-r1, 2012-02-21 [2]. I'm not sure what the new names should be. nmbug → notmuch-dtag (for distributed tag) and nmbug-status → notmuch-report? > That would have to be somehow tied to installing the python > bindings; On Gentoo, that happens via REQUIRED_USE [3,4]. An alternative for packaging systems without USE-flag-style flexibility would be to spin them off into a separate project that depends on Git and notmuch's Python bindings. Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/tree/net-mail/notmuch/metadata.xml [2]: https://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/net-mail/notmuch/ChangeLog?hideattic=0&revision=1.23&view=markup [3]: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/tree/net-mail/notmuch/notmuch-0.21.ebuild?id=45ba77ab1dee61a2590c9f4903e620c5cf4d5f68#n23 [4]: https://projects.gentoo.org/pms/6/pms.html#x1-890008.2.7 -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy