On 9 May 2014 18:03, Phong Long <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dev (sorry if this is a dupe, sent to dev w/ wrong email) > > I’ve been reading up on what it'll take to keep the documentation > up to date as it's something I can do to contribute, but I’m a bit > confused about which format to use. The existing documentation is > in pod format, but should they be in mdoc? > > I found one thread on netbsd mentioning openssl's pod format: > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2009/04/21/msg002053.html > > and this discussion on openbsd ports while looking @ textproc/pod2mdoc: > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.ports/66762 > > indicates that there is a clear need for converting old pods to mdoc. > > caveat section for pod2mdoc(1) admits that: > By way of being a presentational language, POD is not well-represented > by mdoc(7). Semantic content must be inferred and may be wrong. > > Just so that I get started down the right path, should the pod > files be converted to mdoc and continue from then on in mdoc? Or leave > as is and continue with pod?
I'm not crazy about converting from pod to mdoc. If we are going to do anything with the documentation then my preference would be to go with with a source based system, e.g. doxygen. This was discussed recently: http://marc.info/?l=openssl-dev&m=139832883828644&w=2 It's on my TODO list to look at this further....but I've been a little distracted with trying to get some of the RT tickets closed off. I promise I'll try and find some time! Until then, POD is it. Matt ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [email protected]
