On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 03:42:27PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Daniel Dickman wrote on Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 12:03:18AM -0400: > > > Over a decade ago there was some work in bsd.man.mk to build tbl pages > > with mandoc. For example this commit from 2010: > > > > ---------------------------- > > revision 1.32 > > date: 2010/10/17 22:47:08; author: schwarze; state: Exp; lines: +8 -18; > > Build tbl(1) pages with mandoc(1), not groff. > > Xenocara build checked myself, base build also by jmc@, thanks! > > "don't wait for me" deraadt@ > > > > Pages in base using tbl mostly look good already except for the > > rare .T{ macros; there may still be a few formatting issues > > in xenocara, please speak up when you run into them. > > Eventually, mandoc will catch up. > > Today, the tbl(7) formatting of all the pages you are touching > is byte-by-byte identical between groff(1) and mandoc(1) - > with one minor exception in infocmp(1) where groff(1) renders > a few horizontal lines incorrectly due to a bug in groff(1). > > > ---------------------------- > > > > Back then there was some special infrastructure to build these man pages > > if they were named something like *.6tbl. > > > > That convention is a local OpenBSD convention, it does not exist outside > > of our tree. > > > > At this point the special naming for these man pages is no longer needed: > > That is completely correct. > > > * games/phantasia/phantasia.6tbl > > * gnu/usr.sbin/mkhybrid/src/mkhybrid.8tbl > > * share/man/man4/man4.hppa/cpu.4tbl > > * share/man/man4/wi.4tbl > > * share/man/man4/man4.hppa/cpu.4tbl > > * usr.bin/infocmp/infocmp.1tbl > > * usr.bin/tic/captoinfo.1tbl > > > > The benefits are: > > - The affected Makefiles are shortened by 3+ lines > > - diffing external software like mkhybrid against the original sources > > results in less noise > > - remove an unnecessary cp step doing the build > > The price to pay is relatively minor: making it slightly harder to > inspect commit history of these manual pages. But these are not > edited often anyway, so that's not a big deal. > > > ok on the diff below? (I've left out the man page renames from the diff > > for brevity) > > I don't have a strong opinion either way. If you think it's worth it, > i do not object. > > From visual inspection, the diff looks correct to me. I also tested > building and installing in the affected directories and noticed no > issues. I did not run a complete make build / make release cycle > though, but i trust you to not break that. > > Yours, > Ingo > >
for me it's a good move: - easier to find(1) our pages within the source tree - there are so few of them it just looks inconsistent - simpler but i hate losing easy access to cvs history too. so i also have no strong opinions. jmc