mount.8: clarify -a description

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

mount.8: clarify -a description

Klemens Nanni-2
"Similar" can be a bit vague; I thought `mount -a -t nfs' would mount
all NFS shares except those already mounted.

This might be just be, but a little emphasis makes it even clearer that
this is not the case.

Feedback? OK?

Index: mount.8
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/mount/mount.8,v
retrieving revision 1.89
diff -u -p -r1.89 mount.8
--- mount.8 18 Jan 2018 08:57:12 -0000 1.89
+++ mount.8 14 Sep 2018 12:04:19 -0000
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ or
 .Dq net
 options are specified.
 .It Fl a
-Similar to the
+Same as the
 .Fl A
 flag, except that if a file system (other than the root file system)
 appears to be already mounted,

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mount.8: clarify -a description

Jason McIntyre-2
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 02:18:22PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> "Similar" can be a bit vague; I thought `mount -a -t nfs' would mount
> all NFS shares except those already mounted.
>
> This might be just be, but a little emphasis makes it even clearer that
> this is not the case.
>
> Feedback? OK?
>

hi. i'm not so keen - we use this syntax in a lot of pages. it is not
vague. i don;t see how changing it makes anything clearer.

jmc

> Index: mount.8
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/mount/mount.8,v
> retrieving revision 1.89
> diff -u -p -r1.89 mount.8
> --- mount.8 18 Jan 2018 08:57:12 -0000 1.89
> +++ mount.8 14 Sep 2018 12:04:19 -0000
> @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ or
>  .Dq net
>  options are specified.
>  .It Fl a
> -Similar to the
> +Same as the
>  .Fl A
>  flag, except that if a file system (other than the root file system)
>  appears to be already mounted,
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mount.8: clarify -a description

Klemens Nanni-2
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 01:23:05PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> hi. i'm not so keen - we use this syntax in a lot of pages. it is not
> vague. i don;t see how changing it makes anything clearer.
So is "Sames as" used in a lot of places.

It seemed worth suggesting, but I won't push it as there's nothing
wrong per se with the current wording.