Bjarni Ingi Gislason <[email protected]> writes: > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 11:24:57AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Colin Watson <[email protected]> writes:
>>> I can see that that is attempting to avoid a warning. However, it is >>> not quite correct. It should probably be something like this instead: >>> .if !r F .nr F 0 >>> I think ".if !\nF .nr F 0" is basically a no-op, even when warnings are >>> taken into account. It does arrange that if F was previously >>> initialised to a negative number then it will be set to 0 instead (since >>> negative numbers are falsy in groff), but I don't think that matters >>> much since the subsequent test is "\nF>0" anyway. >> I've reverted this code to the earlier version of: > This is the wrong thing to do. Remove my patch. It only eliminates a > symptom, not the cause of it. The real one is to add "-rF0" to the > definition of "troff" and "nroff" (see "/etc/manpath.config" or > "/etc/man_db.conf") in "man-db". Any user can add this to its personal > configuration file, until this bug in "man-db" is fixed. I'm afraid I don't agree. I'm going to go with this solution to eliminate the warning. I think it's the least intrusive and puts the burden of managing these special-use registers in the correct place (in pod2man, which is the program that decided to assign a meaning to it, rather than in man or nroff, which doesn't and shouldn't have any special knowledge of it). -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
