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=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 26767 invoked from network); 4 May 2023 06:18:58 -0000 Received: from bsd.lv (HELO mandoc.bsd.lv) (66.111.2.12) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 4 May 2023 06:18:58 -0000 Received: from fantadrom.bsd.lv (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mandoc.bsd.lv (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 9d6f1b5a for ; Thu, 4 May 2023 01:18:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from mx.stare.cz (uvt.stare.cz [185.63.96.79]) by mandoc.bsd.lv (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 281a6196 for ; Thu, 4 May 2023 01:18:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (stare.cz [local]) by stare.cz (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id 1b4b368a; Thu, 4 May 2023 08:18:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 08:18:51 +0200 From: Jan Stary To: discuss@mandoc.bsd.lv Cc: groff@gnu.org, man-db-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: Behaviour of .so differs between mandoc and groff Message-ID: References: <87ildo5xlr.fsf@ada> <87edo2z2x3.fsf@ada> <20230430120555.3mydcm7qmbsf75v6@illithid> <874josy77n.fsf@ada> X-Mailinglist: mandoc-discuss Reply-To: discuss@mandoc.bsd.lv MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <874josy77n.fsf@ada> > > The problem with symlinks is that they need to be updated to match > > manpage compression. `.so` works with any compression used for the > > manpage. That's not a problem with symlinks, but a problem with manpage compression. Why would anyone compress manpages? How much space does that save overall? OpenBSD: 43.6M /usr/share/man/ 36.6M /usr/local/man/ 17.4M /tmp/man.tar.gz macOS: 133M /Library/Developer//CommandLineTools/SDKs/MacOSX13.3.sdk/usr/share/man 25M /usr/share/man/ 57M /tmp/man.tar.gz Tens of megabytes saved, in the whole system. Absoultely not worth the hassle. -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mandoc.bsd.lv