Re: pending open issues

[Jason McIntyre <jmc@kerhand.co.uk>]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:31:39AM +0200, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote:
> >ps kristaps, did you spot the mail where i asked about why EXIT STATUS
> >was being recommended (in mdoc.7)? i need to know where that comes from...
> 
> Jason (note this is cross-posted to discuss@),
> 
> EXIT STATUS comes from NetBSD groff's mdoc.template:
> 
> .\" This next request is for sections 1 and 8 exit statuses only.
> .\" .Sh EXIT STATUS
> 
> If this is something they use a lot (Joerg?), then it needs to stay in 
> with a specific note that NetBSD conventionally uses EXIT STATUS, whilst 
> OpenBSD puts the `Ex -std' on the final line of the DESCRIPTION.  Not 
> sure about FreeBSD and DragonFly.  Comments?
> 

ok. but your mdoc(7) page states this:

	EXIT STATUS
        Command exit status for section 1, 6, and 8 manuals.  This
        section is the dual of RETURN VALUES, which is used for
        functions.  Historically, this information was described
        in DIAGNOSTICS, a practise that is now discouraged.

what makes you say that formerly it was described in DIAGNOSTICS, but
now should not be? what makes you think that?

and to the other bsd man people reading, what documentation do you have
supporting an EXIT STATUS section, and not DIAGNOSTICS? i could only
find stuff in groff_mdoc(7) in support of DIAGNOSTICS, and no mention of
EXIT STATUS?

again, this is because our (openbsd) pages are inconsistent, and i want
to fix that. but i'm loathe to (re)add a section that everyone says is
supported, but no one seems to document it as being supported. maybe
just groff_mdoc(7) is wrong, but why would that be? netbsd and freebsd
seemingly merged their tmac stuff with groff some years ago.

jmc
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv