From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from smtp-1.sys.kth.se (smtp-1.sys.kth.se [130.237.32.175])
	by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pBAG8UEx005636
	for <tech@mdocml.bsd.lv>; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 11:08:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailscan-1.sys.kth.se (mailscan-1.sys.kth.se [130.237.32.91])
	by smtp-1.sys.kth.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770A1156F84;
	Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:08:24 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at kth.se
Received: from smtp-1.sys.kth.se ([130.237.32.175])
	by mailscan-1.sys.kth.se (mailscan-1.sys.kth.se [130.237.32.91]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with LMTP id 6-iJOPIVl2x2; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:08:22 +0100 (CET)
X-KTH-Auth: kristaps [193.10.49.5]
X-KTH-mail-from: kristaps@bsd.lv
Received: from ctime.hhs.se (ctime.hhs.se [193.10.49.5])
	by smtp-1.sys.kth.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40630156419;
	Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:08:20 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4EE383F4.5000906@bsd.lv>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:08:20 +0100
From: Kristaps Dzonsons <kristaps@bsd.lv>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; OpenBSD amd64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110805 Thunderbird/5.0
X-Mailinglist: mdocml-tech
Reply-To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv
CC: jmc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: chdir() in mandocdb
References: <4EDF49CE.3040508@bsd.lv> <20111208013430.GD19643@iris.usta.de> <4EE07044.4070605@bsd.lv> <20111210141131.GD6375@iris.usta.de>
In-Reply-To: <20111210141131.GD6375@iris.usta.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>>>> I notice that the chdir() for mandocdb()'s OP_NEW is into the base
>>>> directory of the manuals (e.g., /usr/share/man).  However, when I
>>>> run mandocdb over OpenBSD 5.0, I see a few inconsistencies:
>>>>
>>>>    /usr/X11R6/man/man3/XUngrabDevice.3
>
>>> That was a bug in Xenocara, i fixed it here:
>>>
>>> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/xenocara/lib/libXi/man/ \
>>>    XIUngrabDevice.man
>
> [...]
>>>> All of these have an `so' in the current directory.  Looking at
>>>> roff(7) for `so', this is the correct behaviour.
>
>>> No; the roff(7) manual muddles the point.
>>> What it says is correct, but only makes sense
>>> when you already know that man(1) does a chdir(2)
>>> to the root of the tree.
>
>> Can we disambiguate roff(7) to this effect, assuming that the man(1)
>> behaviour is consistent across operating systems?
>
> Well, it has to be, X manuals enforce that consistency.
>
> Hence, OK for the following patch?

If Jason ok's it, then it's fine by me too.

Thanks!
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv