Mike Gerdts writes: > On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 4:56 PM, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> > wrote: > > 217: Too bad X11 has 'bogus share' disease ... I think I would have [...] > I agree, mostly. I chose /usr/X11/share/man because that is a > directory, whereas /usr/X11/man is a symlink. They both get you to > the same place, but /usr/X11/share/man seemed to be chosen as the > "right" place.
I see; I figured the logic was like that. Since I claim /usr/anything/share to be a syntax error, I view the /usr/X11/share path as just a bug, and the /usr/X11/man symlink as the fix for that (presumably ancient) bug. The fact that one's a directory and the other's a symlink is more historical than illustrative, given the definition of /usr/share. But I don't care much. I doubt that anyone would remove either path (or at least _hope_ not) in a fit of "cleanliness," so they should remain equivalent forever. (If the idea is that symlinks are more "flimsy" and it'd be harder for a directory to go missing than for a symlink, then I'd certainly disagree with that. We don't generally design the system to work after having been vandalized.) > To be honest, I am just thrilled that the "right" > place for X executables is not /usr/bin/X11/*. ;-} > > Other than that, it looks like this file doesn't (or shouldn't) pass > > C-style, as it has non-compliant function definitions. Oh, well. > > Don't bother fixing that if you don't feel up to it. > > "cstyle -pP man.c" doesn't complain. That's not good. :-/ > A read of > http://opensolaris.org/os/community/documentation/getting_started_docs/cstyle.ms.pdf > suggests that this may be what you are referring to: Yes; that's what caught my eye. > I've fixed those. Is there something else I should be looking for? I don't know; I didn't stray too much in that direction -- those function definitions (such as free_dupnode) were just the canary in the coal mine. > FWIW, there are also a bunch of continuation line warnings (cstyle > -c). Since Roland has indicated that he will be suggesting a project > to tackle some rather significant work with the man subsystem, I will > leave this for now. OK. I think that's really between you and your RTI Advocate, as it's further afield of the original fix. Some advocates make you clean up all the nits (as you may well be the last to visit this area for some time); others are more lax. > I have updated the webrev at http://cr.opensolaris.org/~mgerdts/6717067/ It looks decent to me. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
