From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1879 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: documenting musl Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 08:46:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20120908124658.GX27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120908024006.GA5937@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120907233658.2eb8ee1a@newbook> <20120908114828.GA67571@intma.in> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1347108269 29218 80.91.229.3 (8 Sep 2012 12:44:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 12:44:29 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1880-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Sep 08 14:44:32 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TAKOj-0003P1-Qw for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Sep 2012 14:44:29 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 7292 invoked by uid 550); 8 Sep 2012 12:44:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 7284 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2012 12:44:26 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1879 Archived-At: On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 02:35:22PM +0200, Daniel Cegiełka wrote: > 2012/9/8 Kurt H Maier : > > On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 10:44:03AM +0200, Daniel Cegiełka wrote: > >> btw. documentation - mandoc is a better option than (old/big/ugly) > >> groff for documentation. > > > > None of those links explain why they seem to think it's either groff or > > roll-your-own, when there are plenty of lightweight roff > > implementations. Any hints? > > hmm... mandoc isn't lightweight? :) > > # du -h | grep image/ > 20.0K ./image/usr/share/man/man1 > 8.0K ./image/usr/share/man/man8 > 32.0K ./image/usr/share/man > 36.0K ./image/usr/share > 248.0K ./image/usr/bin > 288.0K ./image/usr > # ls -lh image/usr/bin/ > total 244 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 6 Sep 8 12:24 apropos -> mandoc > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 6 Sep 8 12:24 makewhatis -> mandoc > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 243.9K Sep 8 12:24 mandoc > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 6 Sep 8 12:24 mandocdb -> mandoc > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 6 Sep 8 12:24 whatis -> mandoc > > compared to groff (gentoo): > > (cut...) > > 7.1M ./image/usr/share > 4.0K ./image/usr/lib64/groff/site-tmac > 60K ./image/usr/lib64/groff/groffer > 68K ./image/usr/lib64/groff > 72K ./image/usr/lib64 > 3.4M ./image/usr/bin > 11M ./image/usr > 11M ./image mandoc may be interesting, but I think the whole mandoc vs groff thing is a distraction from the real topic. groff is a really ugly (GNU, C++) version of the standard troff, of which there's a perfectly good version based on the original troff somewhere, perhaps in heirloom. At some point we may want man pages for various things, but the documentation I started this thread to consider is something that would probably be desirable to have in html and pdf output formats; the input format is open not something I've thought too much about. The content is the important part, and content may eventually be derived/adapted into man pages too.. :) Rich