On Thu, Dec 31 2015, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote: > Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> writes: > >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015, "W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us> wrote: >>> To describe the config file format, so folks don't have to dig through >>> NEWS or the nmbug-status source to get that information. >> >> Overall I approve of the series (though I did not do a thorough >> review). >> >> 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. > > 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? That would have to be somehow tied > to installing the python bindings; or else the script could just print a > helpful error message if the bindings are not found. > > This would also allow addressing Tomi's comment about testing, by adding > a couple of tests to the test suite. What we could simply have at the time being: devel/nmbug/nmbug devel/nmbug/nmbug.rst (or .1) devel/nmbug/nmbug-status devel/nmbug/nmbug-status.rst (or .1) devel/nmbug/nmbug-status-config devel/nmbug/nmbug-status-config.rst (or .5) (and if .rst:s, a Makefile to build the namual pages) The responsibility to install the tools could be outside of notmuch for now... Tomi > > d