From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Debian-exim@smtp1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.185.217]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6ODxK2T002128 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:59:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hekate.usta.de (asta-nat.asta.uni-karlsruhe.de [172.22.63.82]) by smtp1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 4.63 #1) id 1OcfG2-0003Q8-U6; Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:59:19 +0200 Received: from donnerwolke.usta.de ([172.24.96.3]) by hekate.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OcfG2-0005E1-T8 for discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv; Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:59:18 +0200 Received: from iris.usta.de ([172.24.96.5] helo=usta.de) by donnerwolke.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OcfG2-0004k5-S9 for discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv; Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:59:18 +0200 Received: from schwarze by usta.de with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OcfG2-0005im-RR for discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv; Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:59:18 +0200 Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:59:18 +0200 From: Ingo Schwarze To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv Subject: Re: man.7 tweaks Message-ID: <20100724135918.GC26858@iris.usta.de> References: <20100724133216.GA15380@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: <20100724133216.GA15380@bramka.kerhand.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Hi Jason, Jason McIntyre wrote on Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 02:31:52PM +0059: > diff for some man.7 tweaks below. Thanks for working on this! But you should indeed send the diff, it was not included. > couple of questions: > > *) openbsd doesn;t have a LIBRARY section. what is the best way to > reflect that? ingo? Hm, this applies to a couple of sections, and i haven't come to a conclusion yet, either. I think having an identical man(7) manual in all the supported operating systems is a good thing. At the same time, i think the manual should not be blantantly wrong on any of them. Can we, in some way, briefly address the differences, without bloating the text too much? Like in, e.g., This section is used in FreeBSD and NetBSD, but not in OpenBSD. A sentence of this kind makes it plain that there are OS-specific conventions in this respect, without needing another sentence to make that explicit. If someone is using another system that is not listed, it's obvious that s/he must look into it and find out. > *) (again ingo) how does this diff get committed? However you like. If you feel you have enough OKs, just commit to OpenBSD and Kristaps or myself will pick it up and commit it to bsd.lv. If you don't like that approach, you can also ask either of us to commit to both repos in parallel. > *) unrelated, but i'm currently discussing the EXIT STATUS section with > daniel dickman: > > EXIT STATUS > This section documents the command exit status for section > 1, 6, and 8 utilities. Historically, this information was > described in DIAGNOSTICS, a practise that is now discouraged. > > says who? i mean, what leads you to believe this? i ask because openbsd > has no EXIT STATUS section, and both netbsd and freebsd have this in > their groff_man(7) pages: > > .Sh DIAGNOSTICS > Diagnostic messages from a command should be placed in this > section. The `.Ex' macro may be used to generate text for > use in the DIAGNOSTICS section for most section 1, 6 and > 8 commands; see Exit Status. Frankly, no idea... > i'm trying to work out what the best way forward is. Send the patch! ;-) Yours, Ingo -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv