Re: mdoc(7): .St for latest POSIX

2017-06-23 Thread Anthony J. Bentley
Ingo Schwarze writes: > Hi Jason, > > Jason McIntyre wrote on Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 02:07:51PM +0100: > > > so do you want to remove the entry for 1003.1-2013 as well? > > none of our man pages use it. > > The decisive point is that even current groff does not support it, > so deleting it is

Re: mdoc(7): .St for latest POSIX

2017-06-23 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 07:33:40PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Hi Jason, > > Jason McIntyre wrote on Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 06:24:17PM +0100: > > > yes, i'm fine with removing it. > > Good, i'll commit it unless i hear objections. > > > i hate to say it, but i think it was you who added it! >

Re: mdoc(7): .St for latest POSIX

2017-06-23 Thread Ingo Schwarze
Hi Jason, Jason McIntyre wrote on Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 06:24:17PM +0100: > yes, i'm fine with removing it. Good, i'll commit it unless i hear objections. > i hate to say it, but i think it was you who added it! RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/mandoc/st.in,v revision 1.17 date: 2013/12/30 09:47:43;

Re: mdoc(7): .St for latest POSIX

2017-06-23 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 07:05:34PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Hi Jason, > > Jason McIntyre wrote on Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 02:07:51PM +0100: > > > so do you want to remove the entry for 1003.1-2013 as well? > > none of our man pages use it. > > The decisive point is that even current groff

Re: mdoc(7): .St for latest POSIX

2017-06-23 Thread Ingo Schwarze
Hi Jason, Jason McIntyre wrote on Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 02:07:51PM +0100: > so do you want to remove the entry for 1003.1-2013 as well? > none of our man pages use it. The decisive point is that even current groff does not support it, so deleting it is unlikely to break other's pages. OK?

Re: mdoc(7): .St for latest POSIX

2017-06-22 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 01:40:10PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Hi Anthony, > > Anthony J. Bentley wrote on Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:21:55AM -0600: > > > ok? > > NO, definitely NOT OK without a thorough rationale. > i imagine the rationale is the existence of -p1003.1-2013 ;) > We do not add

Re: mdoc(7): .St for latest POSIX

2017-06-22 Thread Ingo Schwarze
Hi Anthony, Anthony J. Bentley wrote on Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:21:55AM -0600: > ok? NO, definitely NOT OK without a thorough rationale. We do not add definitions just like that. The file st.in has lots of irrelevant definitions already, and i won't let that trend continue. If i remember

Re: mdoc(7): .St for latest POSIX

2017-06-22 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:21:55AM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: > ok? > morning. yes, ok. jmc > Index: share/man/man7/mdoc.7 > === > RCS file: /cvs/src/share/man/man7/mdoc.7,v > retrieving revision 1.153 > diff -u -p -r1.153

mdoc(7): .St for latest POSIX

2017-06-22 Thread Anthony J. Bentley
ok? Index: share/man/man7/mdoc.7 === RCS file: /cvs/src/share/man/man7/mdoc.7,v retrieving revision 1.153 diff -u -p -r1.153 mdoc.7 --- share/man/man7/mdoc.7 10 Jun 2017 16:32:08 - 1.153 +++ share/man/man7/mdoc.7