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 machines. > > having said that, i've nothing against the switch. i imagine it'd be > hard to find a system without less(1). I was only talking about mandoc in OpenBSD. I rarely ask questions about mandoc-portable on <tech@openbsd.org>, and i rarely decide what to do in mandoc-portable before things are committed to OpenBSD. It does indeed seem hard to find an OpenBSD system without less(1). :) Not yet sure what i will do in -portable. Maybe test for the availability of less(1) in ./configure, which is quite easy to do and which ./configure already does for many operating system features. That would also be convenient because the mandoc ./configure is set up in such a way that it is trivial for downstream package maintainers (say in Void Linux, FreeBSD, or Illumos) to manually override in their package any result that ./configure automatically detects. But that does not need to bother anyone here. None of the (very small amount of) portability code is in our OpenBSD CVS tree. > 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. Ah. Good to know. Then that's definitely no longer needed. Thanks, Ingo
