On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 01:18:05AM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Hi Jason, > > Jason McIntyre wrote on Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:10:55PM +0100: > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 05:22:12PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > > >> As there is no fully satisfactory option, i propose the patch below. > >> It add the "-W portable" command line option, which is a variant of > >> "-W style" hiding messages that only apply to base system manuals. > > > i'm not entirely convinced... are there likely to be other style > > warnings that apply to our base manuals but not "portable"? > > if there's a list of things then maybe it makes sense. > > Quite likely in the future: > > - In base, we only want sections 1-9 and 3p. > In third-party software, sections like "n" (for TCL) > or "3f" (for Fortran) may be legitimate. > > - In base, we have a fixed list of architectures that we want > to check the third .Dt argument against. > In portable software, architectures that do not exist in OpenBSD > may be legitimate. > > - In base, we probably want to warn about standard .Sh sections > that we don't use in OpenBSD (like LIBRARY). > In portable software, a LIBRARY section may be legitimate, if > the software is also targetting systems like FreeBSD, NetBSD, > or Linux where that section is in widespread use (and actually > somewhat useful because they either have such a vast swamp of > libraries in base, or no clear distinction between base and > ports at all). > > - In base, we always want to warn in case the .Os macro has any > argument whatsoever. > In portable software, an .Os argument may be deliberate. >
fair enough then, if you think it's worth doing. but aren't you worried that you're gonna end up with all operating systems/interested parties wanting their own flags? jmc
