Remove entierly from the SEE ALSO section. Elsewhere, remove as
appropriate and change from .Xr to .Nm where a mention of telnetd
continues to make sense (or removing it would require significant
reworking of the surrounding text).
Details
Details
- Reviewers
delphij imp emaste - Commits
- rGb4cfdbfed2c8: manpages: Remove telnetd references
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG FreeBSD src repository
- Lint
Lint Not Applicable - Unit
Tests Not Applicable
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
(Please see comments inline -- I think the port should be mentioned in telnet(1); not sure about inetd(8) but since we mentioned uucpd there it seems to be somewhat logical to have it there too)
| contrib/telnet/telnet/telnet.1 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1468 | Maybe worth mentioning the port here? | |
| usr.sbin/inetd/inetd.8 | ||
| 966–967 | I'm somewhat inclined to say that we should reference the port in case the user needs the functionality, perhaps something like .Nm telnetd Pq Pa ports/net/freebsd-telnetd ? | |
Comment Actions
Restore a couple more important references adding a reference to the
port. This follows existing inetd.8 practice.
| share/man/man7/security.7 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 100–103 | This is definitely better than previous but we should probably delete this section altogether in a subsequent commit. | |
| 341–342 | Similar comment to above, also "those" doesn't agree with singular telnetd. Maybe missed when some r-service was removed from this page? | |
| usr.bin/login/login.1 | ||
| 66 | The option is basically of historical interest only now? | |
| usr.bin/login/login.1 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 66 | It's a bit hard to know for sure, but there will be no users in the tree. I'd be curious to know what (if anything) in ports uses login(1). | |