From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from acme.spoerlein.net (acme.spoerlein.net [188.72.220.29])
	by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4BCZbE8031271
	for <discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv>; Tue, 11 May 2010 06:35:38 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from acme.spoerlein.net (localhost.spoerlein.net [IPv6:::1])
	by acme.spoerlein.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o4BGNr0h089218
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
	for <discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv>; Tue, 11 May 2010 18:23:53 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from uqs@spoerlein.net)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=spoerlein.net;
	s=dkim200908; t=1273595033;
	bh=ZPmKxBZBlXi2DUtUhed6oRzI51CbJQL3Nj7RZHvomVk=;
	h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:
	 Content-Type:In-Reply-To;
	b=A8qVexbVPtk9lfuOKfu5ipSnX+Yb1EJSjvbhg2f8ck7OUcDkBNg6YL9QF2HxST4cg
	 jiTtqrnczbwLTLXezk5kRbNXd5A2fgF9ywqIcybvJFvIM8pGFPvGCO+vuFMet82JoW
	 miSJtoSUiSRiW6bU59L2IMCO2YHMzlAj31UaZyT0=
Received: (from uqs@localhost)
	by acme.spoerlein.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o4BGNqLp089217
	for discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv; Tue, 11 May 2010 18:23:52 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from uqs@spoerlein.net)
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 18:23:52 +0200
From: Ulrich =?utf-8?B?U3DDtnJsZWlu?= <uqs@spoerlein.net>
To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv
Subject: Re: mdoc section ordering
Message-ID: <20100511162352.GY88504@acme.spoerlein.net>
References: <20100511115233.GV88504@acme.spoerlein.net>
 <20100511134542.GA24992@bramka.kerhand.co.uk>
 <20100511145711.GW88504@acme.spoerlein.net>
 <20100511154317.GB24992@bramka.kerhand.co.uk>
X-Mailinglist: mdocml-discuss
Reply-To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100511154317.GB24992@bramka.kerhand.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Tue, 11.05.2010 at 16:42:53 +0059, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 04:57:11PM +0200, Ulrich Sp??rlein wrote:
> > 
> > To clarify, none of these sections shall become mandatory. It's just the
> > ordering that mandoc -Tlint would complain about iff such a section
> > exist.
> > 
> 
> ah, sorry, i misunderstood then. so yeah, it makes no difference to us.
> 
> > I did a quick grep over the OpenBSD tree and it seems that EXIT STATUS
> > isn't really used at all, and where it is used the ordering is not
> > impacted as there are no RETURN VALUES, ENVIRONMENT or FILES sections
> > nearby.
> > 
> > NetBSD however has a couple of pages where FILES or ENVIRONMENT come
> > after EXIT STATUS and that means one of NetBSD or FreeBSD would need to
> > change a couple of pages.
> > 
> 
> as far as i know, EXIT STATUS is not even a standard section header. for
> example, the groff_mdoc.7 page that comes with the latest groff does not
> list it. so maybe there is no issue, and you shouldn;t worry about where
> it's put?

I'm fine with that, only then mandoc should stop "enforcing" this
ordering. It's perfectly fine with me!

Kristaps, what to you think?

Regards,
Uli
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv