I'm not posting these answers into the bugtracker because these points are not relevant for evaluating the patch; i'm merely sending this mail to avoid that people get confused by the misleading statements.
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote on Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 09:06:00PM +0100: > And i have to go back to > .\" @(#)tmac.doc.old 5.2 (Berkeley) 3/13/91 That is totally irrelevant. That file doesn't even implement the same language we are talking about (mdoc v3). It implements the substantially different mdoc v2 language. Manual pages written in one cannot be formatted with a formatter for the other at all, nor vice versa. > I mean, FreeBSD imported groff very early FreeBSD was forked off 386BSD 0.1 which in turn was forked off 4.3BSD-Net/2, which already contained groff several years before FreeBSD even existed, so the statement that FreeBSD imported groff is quite misleading. > Names like dbus-update-activation-environment could > become a problem in conjunction with a date and something else > a little longer. No, *names* cannot cause line breaks. The footer line only contains the .Os identifier and the date, no name whatsoever. > Well, i personally would rather do something like [... ineffective patches snipped ...] Your patches fail to fix the bug. The original 4.4BSD manuals i listed are still misformatted with your patches, and so are modern FreeBSD xo_attr(3) and ld(7) and modern NetBSD dns-sd(1).
