Big +1 to homebrew and macports depends.
They just work. But .. you obv. want a generalised maximal fix. (And
rightly so)
G
Hi Conrad,
> Do the packaging systems on the affected operating systems support
> "recommends" or "suggests"?
My impression is the only OS where this is a problem is macOS. And if
it has a packaging system then groff isn't in it. So instead of
FreeBSD's ‘install package groff’ prompt when
Do the packaging systems on the affected operating systems support
"recommends" or "suggests"? On Debian that would be one way of
circumventing this: suggest, but don't require, the installation of
*roff..
Conrad
Hi Anthony,
> Not all groff parts were commented out. It will use groff if
> installed and if mandoc gives an unsupported warning.
>
> https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/man/blob/man-46/man/man.sh
Thanks, that's interesting. Line 375 onwards,
Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> > What happened to the possibilitiy of simply replacing the .fc macros,
> > and the use of tbl, with tab characters?
>
> Or one of the other alternatives I gave along with that one.
The "PROFILE COMPONENTS" section of inc(1) appears to use an alternative
Ralph Corderoy writes:
> > Apple doesn’t ship any *roff any more. If you look at their
> > /usr/bin/man script, they commented out anything to do with groff and
> > only rely on mandoc.
>
> Odd. That doesn't tally with what Ken said earlier.
>
>
Hi Bakul,
> > groff was the macOS package Ken mentioned that provided troff.
> > I've no knowledge of how Apple ship different troffs and how one can
> > be specified as an nmh dependency.
>
> Apple doesn’t ship any *roff any more. If you look at their
> /usr/bin/man script, they commented out
Hi Anthony,
> > And if not now, then it may do in the future,
>
> Pure FUD.
In your anger, you cut too much.
> > It may be formatting other things wrongly.
> > And if not now, then it may do in the future,
> > especially if knowedgable man-page authors continue to write nmh's
> > *man pages*,
Ralph Corderoy writes:
> You're just prolonging the agony. Make nmh on macOS depend on
> macOS's troff. Whether that's a virtual package satisfied by others
> or an actual package if there's only one. You've identified one thing
> mandoc is formatting wrongly. It may be formatting other things
Greg Minshall wrote in
<747928.1680604649@archlinux>:
...
|[NB: i'm not claiming asciidoc is the right "light-weight markup
|language" to choose. i don't really know. it just seems reasonable
|enough to me. though, probably choosing any of the options, such as
...
What i always hated was
Anthony J. Bentley wrote in
<2866-1680590811.027...@hnc7.hhyy.epmr>:
|Ken Hornstein writes:
|> Let's take the example you gave where the first line for a man
|> page that uses tbl should contain:
|>
|> '\" t
|>
|> So, my question is ... what does this mean? I understand that \" is
|> a
IDE.
From: nmh-workers-bounces+doug=dougwellington@nongnu.org
on behalf of Ralph
Corderoy
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 4:17 AM
To: nmh-workers@nongnu.org
Subject: Number of nmh users. (Was: Unsupported nroff macros on MacOS X)
Hi doug,
> There are 26 memb
On Apr 4, 2023, at 4:49 AM, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
>
> groff was the macOS package Ken mentioned that provided troff. I've no
> knowledge of how Apple ship different troffs and how one can be
> specified as an nmh dependency.
Apple doesn’t ship any *roff any more. If you look at their
Hi Paul,
> What happened to the possibilitiy of simply replacing the .fc macros,
> and the use of tbl, with tab characters?
Or one of the other alternatives I gave along with that one.
But it still leaves the risk of mandoc not coping with something else
now or in the future. macOS, for that's
What happened to the possibilitiy of simply replacing the .fc macros,
and the use of tbl, with tab characters? Sure seems simple, to me.
paul
=--
paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma)
Hi kre,
> > - Require groff. A win all round.
>
> If you mean "require a *roff compat text processor" then OK, but if
> you really mean "groff" then no, never.
groff was the macOS package Ken mentioned that provided troff. I've no
knowledge of how Apple ship different troffs and how one can be
Hi Ken,
> > The status quo is fine. It doesn't require understanding all of
> > troff. Just man(7) plus the odd bit here and there.
>
> Sigh. The "odd bit" unfortunately, for me, requires a lot of
> knowledge that seems to take some serious roff-fu.
Which is why I said refer to the mailing
Hi doug,
> There are 26 members on Savannah. Is that all of us that are left?
The number of subscribers to the mailing lists may be a better
representation.
nmh-announce has ~60. It goes down whenever there's a
flurry of announcements due to domains having expired, accounts being
deleted, or,
Ken,
> >This seems like the sort of thing that should be possible to
> >automate, and that question has been raised before. A quick search
> >turned up the following, among others:
> >
> >
> > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13433903/convert-all-linux-man-pages-to-text-html-or-markdown
>
Ken Hornstein writes:
> Let's take the example you gave where the first line for a man
> page that uses tbl should contain:
>
> '\" t
>
> So, my question is ... what does this mean? I understand that \" is
> a comment, but I'm confused about the leading single quote.
According to mandoc's
You're using macports, homebrew or fink. If the command is in
/usr/local/bin then "its not in OSX" stands as a problem. Its not in $PATH
for a native install without adjunct s/w
All of this can be avoided if nmh adopts "install package x" requirements
because groff does handle .fc.
The point is,
I have ventura but not a clean install. it found homebrew nroff.
/usr/bin/mandoc is in the base. Thats probably why the man command worked.
what you said otherwise, I concur with.
-G
George Michaelson wrote in
:
|Not to prolong the agony, I tried the example on OSX for man tbl:
|
| .TS
| tab(@);
| ccc.
| This@is@centered
| Well,@this@also
| .TE
|
|It didn't work with the nroff -man they
>Not to prolong the agony, I tried the example on OSX for man tbl:
>
> .TS
> tab(@);
> ccc.
> This@is@centered
> Well,@this@also
> .TE
>
>It didn't work with the nroff -man they supply. It did work with mandoc
Silly
Not to prolong the agony, I tried the example on OSX for man tbl:
.TS
tab(@);
ccc.
This@is@centered
Well,@this@also
.TE
It didn't work with the nroff -man they supply. It did work with mandoc
So my summary of
Ken Hornstein wrote in
<20230403223814.692aa1f2...@pb-smtp21.pobox.com>:
|>>> Sorry if I jumped into the middle and missed something, but what about
|>>> using this to convert once?
|>>>
|>>> groff -Thtml
|>
|>> I guess my next question is ... what do we do after that?
|>
|>I thought if
Robert Elz wrote in
<8706.1680561...@jacaranda.noi.kre.to>:
|Date:Mon, 3 Apr 2023 15:10:15 -0700
|From:Bakul Shah
|Message-ID:
|
|| mandoc doesn't understand tbl output for the simple test i tried.
|
|No, in general mandoc doesn't process *roff input at all.
Bakul Shah wrote in
:
|On Apr 3, 2023, at 2:40 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
|>
|> tbl (which seems like it has been supported ... forever?) does the hard
|> work of creating tables for you. It seems like the right tool for the
|> job; even I could figure it out. As Anthony has pointed out
>>> Sorry if I jumped into the middle and missed something, but what about
>>> using this to convert once?
>>>
>>> groff -Thtml
>
>> I guess my next question is ... what do we do after that?
>
>I thought if we ran it through with man (nroff/groff) to ascii, then we'd get
>I don't see a tbl command on MacOS (or freebsd, except if you
>installed groff (or plan9port -- ignore the troff comment!).
At least on MacOS X, 'man tbl' actually works (but there is not a separate
tbl command, true). The man page says:
The tbl language formats tables. It is used within
Date:Mon, 3 Apr 2023 15:10:15 -0700
From:Bakul Shah
Message-ID:
| mandoc doesn't understand tbl output for the simple test i tried.
No, in general mandoc doesn't process *roff input at all. Its input
syntax is similar, and it implements a few *roff commands,
On Apr 3, 2023, at 2:40 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
>
> tbl (which seems like it has been supported ... forever?) does the hard
> work of creating tables for you. It seems like the right tool for the
> job; even I could figure it out. As Anthony has pointed out mandoc
> is the default man page
Ken Hornstein wrote:
>> Sorry if I jumped into the middle and missed something, but what about
>> using this to convert once?
>>
>> groff -Thtml
> I guess my next question is ... what do we do after that?
I thought if we ran it through with man (nroff/groff) to ascii, then
>Why not just add a note in man pages affected by the .fc problem
>that if the tables are not properly lined up, the user must install
>groff (or plan9ports, where you also get troff)?
I don't necessarily object to this, but ... well, that troff request is
weird. Like I'm still not quite sure
Why not just add a note in man pages affected by the .fc problem
that if the tables are not properly lined up, the user must install
groff (or plan9ports, where you also get troff)?
>> Pandoc is available in lxplus, aiadm and most RPM repositories. It's
>> written in Haskell, which means it relies on hundreds of megabytes of
>> library dependencies.
>
>That's certainly fair, but wouldn't it need to be used only once, after
>which the documentation could be maintained in
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023, 07:10 doug dougwellington.com,
wrote:
> > Us.
>
> Of course. There are 26 members on Savannah. Is that all of us that
> are left?
>
I wouldn't personally put it much more than 10x that number. You could
argue 100x but it would be insane to argue 1000x.
mhonarc has
> Us.
Of course. There are 26 members on Savannah. Is that all of us that are
left?
From: George Michaelson
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 2:01 PM
To: doug dougwellington.com
Cc: nmh-workers@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: Unsupported nroff macros on MacOS X
On
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023, 06:48 doug dougwellington.com,
wrote:
> > , but who are we maintaining nmh for?
>
Us.
>
__
From: nmh-workers-bounces+doug=dougwellington@nongnu.org
on behalf of Ken
Hornstein
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 1:30 PM
To: nmh-workers@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: Unsupported nroff macros on MacOS X
>>In a more practical sense, I am not sure there is anyone wit
on.com
Subject: Re: Unsupported nroff macros on MacOS X
>In a more practical sense, I am not sure there is anyone with the free
>cycles to convert the current man pages into some other markup language.
This seems like the sort of thing that should be possible to automate, and
that question has
>I am ... concerned about depending on pandoc, because of this:
>
> Pandoc is available in lxplus, aiadm and most RPM repositories. It's
> written in Haskell, which means it relies on hundreds of megabytes of
> library dependencies.
That's certainly fair, but wouldn't it need to be used only
>>In a more practical sense, I am not sure there is anyone with the free
>>cycles to convert the current man pages into some other markup language.
>
>This seems like the sort of thing that should be possible to automate, and
>that question has been raised before. A quick search turned up the
>In a more practical sense, I am not sure there is anyone with the free
>cycles to convert the current man pages into some other markup language.
This seems like the sort of thing that should be possible to automate, and
that question has been raised before. A quick search turned up the
>> I am kinda against depending on some third-party tool
>
>Where does built-in turn into third-party? With all the modern package
>managers, it's trivial to install other tools as needed.
That's a fair question! And one I struggle with. One thing that is
common is we do make a distinction
3 PM
To: Ken Hornstein
Cc: nmh-workers@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: Unsupported nroff macros on MacOS X
Date:Mon, 03 Apr 2023 11:35:35 -0400
From:Ken Hornstein
Message-ID: <20230403153539.de26b1ef...@pb-smtp21.pobox.com>
| What's the difference between mandoc and mdoc?
Date:Mon, 03 Apr 2023 11:35:35 -0400
From:Ken Hornstein
Message-ID: <20230403153539.de26b1ef...@pb-smtp21.pobox.com>
| What's the difference between mandoc and mdoc?
| It seems like mandoc is just the program that interprets nroff source?
| A lesser
>Sorry if I jumped into the middle and missed something, but what about
>using this to convert once?
>
>groff -Thtml
I guess my next question is ... what do we do after that?
I am assuming that we still want to ship man pages; do we use some tool
to convert them back? Do we have to make man
@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: Unsupported nroff macros on MacOS X
>The status quo is fine. It doesn't require understanding all of troff.
>Just man(7) plus the odd bit here and there.
Sigh. The "odd bit" unfortunately, for me, requires a lot of knowledge
that seems to take some serious
Date:Mon, 03 Apr 2023 17:58:44 +0100
From:Ralph Corderoy
Message-ID: <20230403165844.e9a5f21...@orac.inputplus.co.uk>
| - Require groff. A win all round.
If you mean "require a *roff compat text processor" then OK, but if
you really mean "groff" then no, never.
>The status quo is fine. It doesn't require understanding all of troff.
>Just man(7) plus the odd bit here and there.
Sigh. The "odd bit" unfortunately, for me, requires a lot of knowledge
that seems to take some serious roff-fu.
Let's take the example you gave where the first line for a man
Ralph Corderoy writes:
> Silencing the .fc warning has easy fixes.
>
> - Require groff. A win all round.
I don't agree. The ideal would be for mandoc to gain support for .fc
(listed in its TODO as a desired but low-importance [read: rarely used]
manpage feature), but despite its imperfect
Hi Ken,
> I see what you mean; you can't mix and match macros across packages.
...across macro sets like man and mdoc. No.
The status quo is fine. It doesn't require understanding all of troff.
Just man(7) plus the odd bit here and there. It's sufficed for nmh for
ages. Any occasional issue
>You could replace .fc plus *all* the man macros with all-mdoc macros in
>all the nmh man pages. It's man ^ mdoc == 1.
Ah, poop. I see what you mean; you can't mix and match macros across
packages. Dang it.
--Ken
Hi Ken,
I don't have time to reply fully now.
> My specific question is: should we replace the .fc macros in nmh man
> pages with mdoc macros?
The question is flawed.
You could replace .fc plus *all* the man macros with all-mdoc macros in
all the nmh man pages. It's man ^ mdoc == 1.
But that
>mandoc is a pain. It's one of many programs which attempt to interpret
>man pages whilst being an incomplete implementation. I hang out in
>places which like to talk about troff/nroff, including for man pages,
>and mandoc's flaws crop up a lot.
So I'll admit my ignorance here. What's the
Hi Ken,
> Are we all in agreement that (when possible) we should change man
> pages over to mdoc and new man pages should be written in mdoc?
No, see my other email which crossed.
--
Cheers, Ralph.
Hi Ken,
> This manpage is not compatible with mandoc(1) and might display
> incorrectly.
mandoc is a pain. It's one of many programs which attempt to interpret
man pages whilst being an incomplete implementation. I hang out in
places which like to talk about troff/nroff, including for man
> | Given my druthers I think I'd rather do the last one, since this kind
> | of seems like a table!
>
>I would do it that way (now) too, either that way, or just use mdoc
>primitives - an appropriate layout could probably be achieved using
>the list macros (with tags) in compact mode.
Fair
Apologies. enter (send) before typing.
on FreeBSD 13.1
fc [delimchar [padchar]]Define a delimiting and a padding
character for fields. Currently unsupported.
Also, fc is not recognised in mdoc as far as I can tell. A different
mechanism might be needed no matter what. in which case,
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 3:43 PM Anthony J. Bentley
wrote:
> Ken Hornstein writes:
> > - Switch to tbl(1) macros which as far as I can tell are supported by
> > mandoc and seem to work everywhere.
>
> tbl is supported by mandoc, yes. In my opinion, this is the best option.
> Well, converting to
Ken Hornstein writes:
> - Switch to tbl(1) macros which as far as I can tell are supported by
> mandoc and seem to work everywhere.
tbl is supported by mandoc, yes. In my opinion, this is the best option.
Well, converting to mdoc macros would be nicer, but also much more work,
and who would do
Ken,
> I will admit that my roff-fu is not very good, but I took a look at this.
> It seems this is a common idiom for nmh man pages. Specifically (this
> is from packf(1) but it's similar everywhere else):
any roff-fu i had expired at my last birthday.
i've recently switched to use asciidoc,
Date:Sun, 02 Apr 2023 18:59:03 -0400
From:Ken Hornstein
Message-ID: <20230402225904.db62e187...@pb-smtp2.pobox.com>
| Given my druthers I think I'd rather do the last one, since this kind
| of seems like a table!
I would do it that way (now) too, either that
So I noticed that after an upgrade to MacOS X, I started getting this
warning on certain nmh man pages:
This manpage is not compatible with mandoc(1) and might display incorrectly.
After some digging, it turns out man(1) is a shell script and to make a
long story short is running this command:
65 matches
Mail list logo
