On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 18:00:02 +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> - change a line in man.conf to obey MANWIDTH/COLUMNS:
>
> _build .[1-9ln] /usr/bin/mandoc ${COLUMNS+-Owidth=${MANWIDTH:-$COLUMNS}}
> %s
>
And just for the record, the nroff equivalent for setting the width
with either old man
Kamil Rytarowski wrote on Wed, 11 Nov 2020
at 08:42:04 EST in :
> In the context of objections from people unaware how does catman(8) work
> at all, I accept that the most serious argument for keeping MKCATPAGES
> is that I use window(1).
The most serious argument is this: people have reliance
Date:Tue, 10 Nov 2020 23:31:12 +0100
From:Kamil Rytarowski
Message-ID: <21b45496-5aec-ac45-b9d7-e7680b7d8...@netbsd.org>
| .0 is since ever. I couldn't grep any other suffixes in projects, thus
| one BSD4.3 Reno snapshot has a bunch of files with custom endings.
I'm thinking the opposite. I'm getting tired of people taking it upon
themselves to "fix" things.
On Wed, 11 Nov 2020, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
On 11.11.2020 14:42, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
On 11.11.2020 06:33, Valery Ushakov wrote:
Kamil, you keep confusing mechanism and policy.
I note that
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 14:42:04 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 11.11.2020 06:33, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> > Kamil, you keep confusing mechanism and policy.
>
> I note that some people still missed that after marking the MKCATPAGES
> files obsolete, every NetBSD/z80 users relying on
On 11.11.2020 14:42, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 11.11.2020 06:33, Valery Ushakov wrote:
>> Kamil, you keep confusing mechanism and policy.
>
> I note that some people still missed that after marking the MKCATPAGES
> files obsolete, every NetBSD/z80 users relying on catman(8) (thus even
>
On 11.11.2020 06:33, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> Kamil, you keep confusing mechanism and policy.
I note that some people still missed that after marking the MKCATPAGES
files obsolete, every NetBSD/z80 users relying on catman(8) (thus even
FUZIX/z80 uses dynamic man-pages formatting!) will wipe cat
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 23:31:12 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 10.11.2020 23:04, Robert Elz wrote:
> > Date:Tue, 10 Nov 2020 19:28:41 +0100
> > From:Kamil Rytarowski
> > Message-ID:
>
> So you just confirmed to have a lot of opinions and just started to
>
On Nov 10, 19:28, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
} On 10.11.2020 12:59, Robert Elz wrote:
} > Date:Tue, 10 Nov 2020 11:14:12 +0100
} > From:Kamil Rytarowski
} > Message-ID:
} >
} > | If you still can find any man-page that is unsupported by mandoc, please
} > | let me
On 11/11/20 12:49 AM, Christian Groessler wrote:
On 11/11/20 12:17 AM, Jaromír Doleček wrote:
Le mar. 10 nov. 2020 à 23:45, Mouse a
écrit :
And, of course, when you're up single-user is, generally, when you're
least able to bring other tools to bear or the like, and when you're
possibly most
On 11.11.2020 01:18, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Kamil Rytarowski writes:
>
>> I wish good luck finding user-base/target-audience (if you like, in any
>> age) that relies on the slowest of slow hardware and cannot use anything
>> else to study the system documentation.
>
> You are missing the other
[...single-user...man(1) fails EROFS...]
>>> OK, I see here a suggestion that in the year 2020, installed
>>> catpages save the day as the only way how to get a formatted
>>> manpage for publicly available operating system while in
>>> single-user without a read-write /tmp.
Only way? No, of
Kamil Rytarowski writes:
> I wish good luck finding user-base/target-audience (if you like, in any
> age) that relies on the slowest of slow hardware and cannot use anything
> else to study the system documentation.
You are missing the other larger point. It may well be that catpages
should
On 11.11.2020 00:16, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Kamil Rytarowski writes:
>
>> I am surprised that the proposal to remove MK${FOO} is read as removal
>> of the Makefile conditionals and keep ${FOO} in the base. With that
>> bizarre interpretation the whole proposal renders into useless idea.
>>
>> I
Jaromír Doleček wrote in
:
|Le mar. 10 nov. 2020 à 23:45, Mouse a écrit :
|> And, of course, when you're up single-user is, generally, when you're
|> least able to bring other tools to bear or the like, and when you're
|> possibly most likely need to know how to use a command you don't use
On 11/11/20 12:17 AM, Jaromír Doleček wrote:
Le mar. 10 nov. 2020 à 23:45, Mouse a écrit :
And, of course, when you're up single-user is, generally, when you're
least able to bring other tools to bear or the like, and when you're
possibly most likely need to know how to use a command you
Le mar. 10 nov. 2020 à 23:45, Mouse a écrit :
> And, of course, when you're up single-user is, generally, when you're
> least able to bring other tools to bear or the like, and when you're
> possibly most likely need to know how to use a command you don't use
> enough to have memorized.
Kamil Rytarowski writes:
> I am surprised that the proposal to remove MK${FOO} is read as removal
> of the Makefile conditionals and keep ${FOO} in the base. With that
> bizarre interpretation the whole proposal renders into useless idea.
>
> I would be very surprised to interpret that e.g.
I just discovered another reason I would like to keep catpages, or at
the very least support for them if the admin cares to enable it.
I was on a 9.1 system (for work, not that that matters to my point)
booted single-user. And look:
# man installboot
man: Formatting manual page...
man:
On 10.11.2020 23:04, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Tue, 10 Nov 2020 19:28:41 +0100
> From:Kamil Rytarowski
> Message-ID:
>
> | I hope this is a typo, and not the indication that you forgot how to use
> | the cat-pages at all and miss a computer to cross-check how
Date:Tue, 10 Nov 2020 19:28:41 +0100
From:Kamil Rytarowski
Message-ID:
| I hope this is a typo, and not the indication that you forgot how to use
| the cat-pages at all and miss a computer to cross-check how these files
| are named.
As in my reply to Mouse, I
Date:Tue, 10 Nov 2020 14:13:04 -0500 (EST)
From:Mouse
Message-ID: <202011101913.oaa19...@stone.rodents-montreal.org>
| I certainly don't see any reason kre shouldn't name catpages with a
| manual-section suffix, if that works for him.
It wasn't due to any
> cat-pages always finish with .0 (unless compressed) and that way they
> are integrated into man.conf(5).
That is not my experience; I have not infrequently seen them named
ending with .cat1, .cat2, .cat3, etc. I think I've even seen them
named simply .1, .2, .3, etc, differentiated from the
On 10.11.2020 12:59, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Tue, 10 Nov 2020 11:14:12 +0100
> From:Kamil Rytarowski
> Message-ID:
>
> | If you still can find any man-page that is unsupported by mandoc, please
> | let me know and I will report it.
>
> That was done (by
Kamil Rytarowski writes:
> It's not a selling point to any regular user, born after A.D. 2000 to
> optimize reading man pages.
This ageist comment is offensive and not appropriate on NetBSD lists.
It's also remarkably off base; the notion that most NetBSD users are
less than 20 years old
Date:Tue, 10 Nov 2020 11:14:12 +0100
From:Kamil Rytarowski
Message-ID:
| If you still can find any man-page that is unsupported by mandoc, please
| let me know and I will report it.
That was done (by someone else, sorry, I have forgotten who that was)
earlier
On 10.11.2020 10:30, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Tue, 10 Nov 2020 00:05:32 +0100
> From:Kamil Rytarowski
> Message-ID:
>
> | Do you use it? Do you know anybody who uses it on NetBSD-current?
>
> I might start. Particularly for the pages that mandoc can't format
Date:Tue, 10 Nov 2020 00:05:32 +0100
From:Kamil Rytarowski
Message-ID:
| Do you use it? Do you know anybody who uses it on NetBSD-current?
I might start. Particularly for the pages that mandoc can't format properly.
| I don't trust that these people are
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 12:05:32AM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 09.11.2020 21:46, Robert Elz wrote:
> > Date:Mon, 9 Nov 2020 19:05:23 +0100
> > From:Kamil Rytarowski
> > Message-ID: <04c9e1ad-df4e-1372-74d3-a17fdd5dd...@netbsd.org>
> >
> > | I propose to
On Nov 10, 1:13, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
} On 10.11.2020 01:05, Paul Goyette wrote:
} > On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
} >
} >
} >>
} >> It's not a selling point to any regular user, born after A.D. 2000 to
} >> optimize reading man pages.
} >
} > Whoa there.=C2=A0 Don't put down
On 10.11.2020 01:18, Mouse wrote:
>>> [...]
>> It's not a selling point to any regular user, born after A.D. 2000 to
>> optimize reading man pages.
>
> (a) So what? Neither, I daresay, is, oh, say, fpr, which is still
> present in 9.1
>
We might want to see fortran back. I have got no
>> [...]
> It's not a selling point to any regular user, born after A.D. 2000 to
> optimize reading man pages.
(a) So what? Neither, I daresay, is, oh, say, fpr, which is still
present in 9.1
(b) Are those the only people NetBSD cares about? Or the only people
you think it should care
On 10.11.2020 01:05, Paul Goyette wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>
>
>>
>> It's not a selling point to any regular user, born after A.D. 2000 to
>> optimize reading man pages.
>
> Whoa there. Don't put down us older folks. And why would you want
> to characterize
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
It's not a selling point to any regular user, born after A.D. 2000 to
optimize reading man pages.
Whoa there. Don't put down us older folks. And why would you want
to characterize "regular user" as being "not yet two decades old" ?
On 09.11.2020 21:46, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Mon, 9 Nov 2020 19:05:23 +0100
> From:Kamil Rytarowski
> Message-ID: <04c9e1ad-df4e-1372-74d3-a17fdd5dd...@netbsd.org>
>
> | I propose to remove catman(8).
>
> Don't.
Do you use it? Do you know anybody who uses it on
On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 21:12:10 +0100, Tobias Nygren wrote:
> mandoc is used for everything that is in pkgsrc. For example:
> $ mandoc /usr/pkg/man/man1/bash.1 | more
>
> If you want to make the argument that it cannot render certain
> third-party manual pages in way that makes the content
>> $ mandoc /usr/pkg/man/man1/bash.1 | more
> or even just man /usr/pkg/man/man1/bash.1
> although I'm not sure when this was introduced; I'm pretty sure it
> didn't always work.
It didn't.
Trying it on my machines, it works (well, not with that exact path, but
with a different path to a
Date:Mon, 9 Nov 2020 19:05:23 +0100
From:Kamil Rytarowski
Message-ID: <04c9e1ad-df4e-1372-74d3-a17fdd5dd...@netbsd.org>
| I propose to remove catman(8).
Don't.
| - cat pages are not generated by default since 2012 and almost nobody
| (except me?) used them
On Mon 09 Nov 2020 at 21:12:10 +0100, Tobias Nygren wrote:
> mandoc is used for everything that is in pkgsrc. For example:
> $ mandoc /usr/pkg/man/man1/bash.1 | more
or even just man /usr/pkg/man/man1/bash.1
although I'm not sure when this was introduced; I'm pretty sure it
didn't always work.
On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 14:12:19 -0500 (EST)
Mouse wrote:
> As for mandoc(1), I haven't looked at it...but I question how well it
> can work. While I don't see them often, I do occasionally see manpages
> (for third-party software, to be sure[%]) containing code that looks to
> me like small bits of
Please do. Thank you.
Le lun. 9 nov. 2020 à 19:09, Kamil Rytarowski a écrit :
>
> I propose to remove catman(8).
>
> The removal of all cat-man remnants was already implied during the
> proposal of drop MKCATPAGES, but it apparently was not clear enough.
>
> Rationale:
> - cat pages are not
> I propose to remove catman(8).
> [and all other forms of support for preformatted manpages]
Personally, I would consider that a mistake.
The major use I make of them - besides speed - is reading manpages out
of a directory in some unexpected corner of the filesystem. I have
found it far
I propose to remove catman(8).
The removal of all cat-man remnants was already implied during the
proposal of drop MKCATPAGES, but it apparently was not clear enough.
Rationale:
- cat pages are not generated by default since 2012 and almost nobody
(except me?) used them in the past few years.
43 matches
Mail list logo
