Hi,
ropers wrote on Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 05:54:46AM +0100:
> Ah, I see where you're coming from, Ingo. You've dropped the idea of
> testing for less(1) in non-portable mandoc because we know less(1) is
> in base.[1]
Configuration testing is never needed in a base system. It may
sometimes
Ah, I see where you're coming from, Ingo. You've dropped the idea of
testing for less(1) in non-portable mandoc because we know less(1) is
in base.[1]
That makes a lot of sense.
Like you said, the idea of testing for less might be worth revisiting
in mandoc-portable. Admittedly, testing for
Hi Jason & Theo,
thanks for the feedback!
Jason McIntyre wrote on Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 05:02:02PM +0100:
> i guess the argument in favour of more(1) would be that it is part of
> posix, even if optional, where less(1) is not. so it makes sense to
> choose a command most likely to work on most
> about -s: it's inclusion probably comes from a time when there was an
> annoying bug in nroff that made our man pages randomly display a number
> of blank lines in the middle of a page. -s mitigated that somewhat.
that is also what I recall.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 05:36:34PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi,
>
> currently, if neither the MANPAGER nor the PAGER environment variable
> is set, man(1) uses "more -s" as the manual page pager. I am quite
> sure that the only reason i did this is that i thought this behaviour
> was
Good.
The user-interface of less is slightly more refined, and definately
preferred.
Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi,
>
> currently, if neither the MANPAGER nor the PAGER environment variable
> is set, man(1) uses "more -s" as the manual page pager. I am quite
> sure that the only reason i did
Hi,
currently, if neither the MANPAGER nor the PAGER environment variable
is set, man(1) uses "more -s" as the manual page pager. I am quite
sure that the only reason i did this is that i thought this behaviour
was required by POSIX.
But it is not:
