From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 28682 invoked from network); 3 May 2023 00:30:18 -0000 Received: from bsd.lv (HELO mandoc.bsd.lv) (66.111.2.12) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 3 May 2023 00:30:18 -0000 Received: from fantadrom.bsd.lv (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mandoc.bsd.lv (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 495d8a8e for ; Tue, 2 May 2023 19:30:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-pl1-f171.google.com (mail-pl1-f171.google.com [209.85.214.171]) by mandoc.bsd.lv (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id c4894e6e for ; Tue, 2 May 2023 19:30:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pl1-f171.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1a50cb65c92so34100235ad.0 for ; Tue, 02 May 2023 17:30:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1683073813; x=1685665813; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:date:subject:cc:to:from :user-agent:references:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=T8yCJGIip4niNSrJLxjXqXLZ89XCpKGsxMRgWukWwdU=; b=W+mYhG6fj6Jz7Zu3W72IsXIC1LPPrBZYiQ8noY0Ow4E3FPSTIgFePUCDYU/hBMQLLT wUop9xd5hEpGRvvLBSfhr+44m2dmkCbbqHuwecSaL3aE63ar5Suj0I4ypod4zVnTxYUP ut8TbCXHHjC5qipWLPQw67HuJXdwcFU8J8CxAmJVnGLQ1yAX7KvnabVPdTdE6bmaNWjS ZfctXDFNJ9SDrMHTLX18QBsfHPtLakNVUcm4GthcaUj51bixsR+PDzFoqGNazkzY28pq mrBlXWeHkBWXi2yqib5x/4Sc39RsSzR+IRK0PtoPNpc9CeYH9QWeNqx3m3QcqEPBW13w Hj2g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683073813; x=1685665813; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:date:subject:cc:to:from :user-agent:references:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=T8yCJGIip4niNSrJLxjXqXLZ89XCpKGsxMRgWukWwdU=; b=IDnftzvIfpqY5d/+Ja6s5rKKV4d/IJsryllgpFKZ2Ss5aulH9sZKqsNkZMucIM7cjB XMZD+aP7SpGXckZfzSwa3z9WHLB5TwVVIDRjw+R9llyEl6GJ6Bgf6Y9E6i7T4HY99p57 FuxPyCA0KbB2UG5fB1q2yS3mNRL7p8okYYLZjX8X1xjzlv0fCDUHNz4HRo4+nOHy0sMt ETHQLRjko5Jew4kN1PqaCK4OzJvAwwH1uBKLNkvk3AUCAXCDwmyHZsqA3cI0EG4TdX9+ eer/AB/gEjrU/St5tEctfSQvJWvl2S8sodEhMeaeeSCT3jJUbne2rWYKWb8mB5yURhOT YRQA== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDwsz9CnU8XRXK+6wQTX62KUWPqiT06PeFLKZ6ADab2fK3hwMjRr 4h/4J/ego9s8VKVFxUbipAs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5+unAQpBPilz6CMHyjV3tN598zmXSuTPtSIjU22FKi7lGeeThNnzSoZHH3QGShPL70Y0vUzQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d2cc:b0:1aa:ffe1:de13 with SMTP id n12-20020a170902d2cc00b001aaffe1de13mr381764plc.5.1683073812785; Tue, 02 May 2023 17:30:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2405:6e00:294:9b84:3085:642d:94e5:ba0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ba11-20020a170902720b00b001a63ba28052sm17070591plb.69.2023.05.02.17.30.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 02 May 2023 17:30:12 -0700 (PDT) References: <87ildo5xlr.fsf@ada> <87edo2z2x3.fsf@ada> <20230430120555.3mydcm7qmbsf75v6@illithid> User-agent: mu4e 1.8.14; emacs 28.3 From: Alexis To: "G. Branden Robinson" Cc: discuss@mandoc.bsd.lv, groff@gnu.org, man-db-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: Behaviour of .so differs between mandoc and groff Date: Wed, 03 May 2023 10:27:53 +1000 In-reply-to: <20230430120555.3mydcm7qmbsf75v6@illithid> Message-ID: <87cz3ixnn2.fsf@ada> X-Mailinglist: mandoc-discuss Reply-To: discuss@mandoc.bsd.lv MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed "G. Branden Robinson" writes: > In practice, as I understand it, `so` doesn't achieve anything > for man > pages that can't be done with symbolic links and (importantly) a > man > page indexer that is symlink-aware. Perhaps `so` support was > preserved, > and its practice retained, for a long time because at one point > in the > 1980s I think there was an AT&T/BSD split over symbolic links > even being > supported by the kernel. (And, to be fair, symbolic links are > something > of a hack that can make file system operations more painful. I > see from > the nftw() man page that they were still doing so as late as > glibc 2.30, > 3 years ago.) > > Does this help? Thanks, i've just opened a bug on the Gentoo bug tracker about this, "man pages for alternatives: Use of .so instead of symlink creates issue when using mandoc": https://bugs.gentoo.org/905624 in which i reference this thread. Alexis. -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mandoc.bsd.lv