From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailout.scc.kit.edu (mailout.scc.kit.edu [129.13.185.202]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r8FMQecT004344 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 18:26:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hekate.usta.de (asta-nat.asta.uni-karlsruhe.de [172.22.63.82]) by scc-mailout-02.scc.kit.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72 #1) id 1VLKm7-0004r2-CT; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 00:26:39 +0200 Received: from donnerwolke.usta.de ([172.24.96.3]) by hekate.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1VLKm7-0005sd-ET; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 00:26:39 +0200 Received: from iris.usta.de ([172.24.96.5] helo=usta.de) by donnerwolke.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VLKm6-0003Eb-RR; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 00:26:39 +0200 Received: from schwarze by usta.de with local (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1VLKm6-0002op-Qi; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 00:26:38 +0200 Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 00:26:38 +0200 From: Ingo Schwarze To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv Cc: Thomas Klausner Subject: Re: [jperkin@netbsd.org: CVS commit: pkgsrc/textproc/mdocml] Message-ID: <20130915222638.GN4706@iris.usta.de> References: <20130912110300.GA6140@danbala.tuwien.ac.at> <20130915123135.GA4706@iris.usta.de> <20130915215048.GF24806@danbala.tuwien.ac.at> 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: <20130915215048.GF24806@danbala.tuwien.ac.at> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Hi Thomas, Thomas Klausner wrote on Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 11:50:48PM +0200: > Just to make sure it's clear -- this is only for pkgsrc. > NetBSD's base contains mdocml (used for man pages by default) Oh really! When did you switch to using mandoc(1) as the system's manual page formatter? I didn't even notice you switched... [...] > To fill in the picture: NetBSD base installs all mandoc man pages in > section 7 as mandoc_foo.7, and of the binaries only mandoc itself. Oh, i see. > If NetBSD ever gets rid of groff, they might be renamed back to their > default names, but as long as we have distribution/setup notes in > roff, this won't happen anytime soon. > > Btw, what does OpenBSD do with the installation notes, or were they > rewritten in something else but roff? Not sure what you are talking about, maybe something like this? http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/distrib/notes/INSTALL In any case, no plain roff code remains in OpenBSD, and all roff macro code is mdoc(7), man(7), and eqn(7) and can be handled by mandoc(1). > So there is no mandoc package in ports? No, in OpenBSD, it is very unusual to have software in ports that is already available in the base system, with few exceptions. - fvwm is old but stable in base, fvwm in ports is GPL - httpd is old and audited in base, apache-httpd in ports has a bad license There may be a few others, but in general, if the version in base is up to date and maintained, there won't be a port. >> I agree that calling our manual "roff(7)" was presumptuous, and that >> mandoc-roff(7) is better. If Kristaps explicitly agrees i might >> consider renaming the file in the bsd.lv repo as well. Probably, >> i would first ask for opinions in OpenBSD as well because keeping >> things in sync would be nicer. > I guess more pages would need to be renamed to be consistent. > I'm not sure what to do here, so I just sent it as a FYI. OK, so let's leave it as it is for now and avoid change that would verge change for change's sake. Yours, Ingo -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv