[MPlayer-DOCS] [NEW FILE] slave.1

[Jonas Jermann]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 12:09:01PM +0200, Guillaume POIRIER wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 8/24/05, Oded Shimon <ods15 at ods15.dyndns.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:40:13PM +0200, Guillaume POIRIER wrote:
> > > Hi there,
> > >
> > > The slave mode of MPlayer has not been advertised as much as it deserves to.
> > > Please find in attachment of "GROFFed" version of the slave mode doc.
> > > I checked the formatting, it seems okay on my side.
> > >
> > > If ever that file get committed, we will need to find a name for that
> > > file. I propose "mplayer-slave", and propose to add a script called
> > > "mplayer-slave" that launches the movie given in parameter in slave
> > > mode.
> > >
> > > Please tell me what you think.
> > 
> > Well you asked...
> > 
> > I don't really like it :/ I don't want MPlayer to do any more man page
> 
> MPlayer todo list states that mplayer.1 should get splitted one day to
> mplayer.1 and mencoder.1. The more I think about it, the more I think
> it'd be a Good Thing(TM).

I am against this unless it is done automatically, ie. if all mplayer/mencoder
specific options are somehow marked and the corresponding man pages are then
generated automatically. Otherwise each patch needs to be applied to both man
pages. The biggest part of mplayer.1 is common for both mplayer and mencoder
anyway...

About the slave.1 man page: I also vote against this

man page usually (ok not always, eg. perl) refer to the program beeing used so
slave.1 is no option for me. Additionally I don't think that slave.1 is better
found than tech/slave.txt. Renaming it to mplayer-slave also is no solution to
me. It really isn't that hard to type mplayer -slave, so why create an extra
program just for the sake of a man page? So I vote for either including it to
the mplayer man page (I have no problems with big man pages, but some ppl do?),
leave it as it is or maybe include it into the xml docs.


Best Regards
	Jonas