When passing in source filenames (rather than package names) on the command
line, the generated web pages do not contain a list of packages, a package page,
or package.html.  This request is to include this information, the same as if 
the user had passed in a list of package names.  Only the specified classes 
would be documented with their own class pages -- unspecified classes would
not be documented.  

For example, say class C belongs to package p, and C.java is passed in with
"javadoc C.java".  Package p and class p.C would be documented.  
Unspecified classes that belong to package p would remain undocumented.

(See the email trail in "Comments")

N/A

I feel this is an important enhancement, and many developers have requested it.
  xxxxx@xxxxx   2000-12-08

Updated the synopsis and description to be more accurate, in that it should include all the package info, not just the package list.
  xxxxx@xxxxx   2001-06-29

Note that this possibly requires us to handle the unnamed package
when you pass in a .java file with no package declaration.
How about if we just add the word "<unnamed>" to the top (or bottom)
of the list of packages?

Changed from an RFE to a bug.
  xxxxx@xxxxx   2001-06-29

This bug has been fixed.  Location of fix:

IndexBuilder.java
AbstractPackageWriter.java
HtmlStandardWriter.java
PackageIndexFrameWriter.java

  xxxxx@xxxxx   2001-06-29

I have refined this fix to handle classes in unnamed packages.  A link with the lable <unnamed package>  now appears at the top of the packge list when classes in unnamed packages are specified on the command line. 
  xxxxx@xxxxx   2001-07-05