On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 02:24:42PM +0000, hyjial wrote: > > renaming the files is probably not a great option, so unless someone > > hacks in the support to man(1), it will probably stay that way. > > Why so ? I mean : why isn't renaming files a > suitable option ? Apologies for such a candid > question if it turns out to be labelled as ``stupid''.
because then the people that look after dealing with X have more work on their plate when importing the source. > Right now, man(1) looks at the file name and > decides what its fate will be according to a series > of rules given in man.conf(5). This at least is > what comes first after having read both > manpages. I've not read the code. Making > man(1) support X conventions would require 1/ > a change in man.conf(5) format - a new keyword > would be needed-and 2/ man(1) to look *into* the > file. > man.conf can;t handle anything like that just now. man(1) would have to look into the file, as you say. and, as i said, that means someone has to volunteer their time to get it working. jmc
