From bob@NewStorm.WhiteBarn.Com  Thu Apr 26 10:15:42 2001
Return-Path: <bob@NewStorm.WhiteBarn.Com>
Received: from smtp.whitebarn.com (Spin.whitebarn.com [216.0.13.113])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDF5E37B625
	for <FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bob@NewStorm.WhiteBarn.Com)
Received: from NewStorm.WhiteBarn.Com (NewStorm.whitebarn.com [216.0.13.77])
	by smtp.whitebarn.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29217
	for <FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:15:41 -0500 (CDT)
	(envelope-from bob@NewStorm.WhiteBarn.Com)
Received: (from bob@localhost)
	by NewStorm.WhiteBarn.Com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f3QHE2a01022;
	Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:14:02 -0500 (CDT)
	(envelope-from bob)
Message-Id: <200104261714.f3QHE2a01022@NewStorm.WhiteBarn.Com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:14:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: Bob Van Valzah <bob@NewStorm.WhiteBarn.Com>
Reply-To: Bob@Talarian.Com
To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: ncr(4) makes no mention of sym(4) or relative virtues
X-Send-Pr-Version: 3.2

>Number:         26881
>Category:       docs
>Synopsis:       ncr(4) makes no mention of sym(4) or relative virtues
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       low
>Responsible:    dd
>State:          closed
>Quarter:        
>Keywords:       
>Date-Required:  
>Class:          doc-bug
>Submitter-Id:   current-users
>Arrival-Date:   Thu Apr 26 10:20:01 PDT 2001
>Closed-Date:    Tue May 15 18:59:36 PDT 2001
>Last-Modified:  Tue May 15 18:59:44 PDT 2001
>Originator:     Bob Van Valzah
>Release:        FreeBSD 4.2-RELEASE i386
>Organization:
>Environment:

	

>Description:

	The ncr(4) and sym(4) drivers both seem to cover the same
	chip sets.  That begs the question of which driver should be
	used when.  The sym(4) manpage at least mentions ncr(4) but
	never gives any reason why you'd want to use one over the other.
	The ncr(4) manpage doesn't even mention sym(4).

>How-To-Repeat:

	man 4 ncr

>Fix:

	From what I've been able to gleen from the history of these
	drivers, the sym(4) driver is more modern and general
	than ncr(4).  If so, there should be a note to this effect on
	ncr(4).  At the very least, ncr(4) should have a see also
	pointing to sym(4).

	It'd be nice if both pages contained complimentary rationalles
	for choosing one over the other.
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed 
State-Changed-By: dd 
State-Changed-When: Sat Apr 28 20:48:40 PDT 2001 
State-Changed-Why:  
xref added; rationale which edges on personal bias doesn't really belong in 
man pages, however. 


Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-doc->dd 
Responsible-Changed-By: dd 
Responsible-Changed-When: Sat Apr 28 20:48:40 PDT 2001 
Responsible-Changed-Why:  
My MFC reminder. 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=26881 
State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->closed 
State-Changed-By: dd 
State-Changed-When: Tue May 15 18:59:36 PDT 2001 
State-Changed-Why:  
MFC'd 

http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=26881 
>Unformatted:
