> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 15:28:49 +0200 > From: Ingo Schwarze <[email protected]>
> I literally spent years of my life improving that. and im sure it is much better for it. > texlive documentation is definitely a maze... tex... well, half the point of it is that once you get it working, you can run it on old files. sure, i would never wish to get it working, but as a user, it only takes me a few seconds to see that some very fundamental bits, like the tex examples of don knuth and pdftex are missing. it hard to get texlive up and running. i have difficulty in believing it is so hard to either not rm some tex code, or, as i have had to do, run tar xfz on some files from ctan. > As a matter of fact, it installs *both*. ugh, no it doesnt. leaving something in a zipped archive is *not* installing it... just ask any makefile. > *and the nroff source is included* good on em. why is it easier to get third party binaries than the openbsd source? the whole reason i use openbsd is for the source, yet folks just seem to keep trying to make source harder to get at. > That's a non-issue as long as mandoc cannot handle the POSIX manuals > at all. give it more credit. it handles a lot of it just fine. > Besides, 3p is Perl in OpenBSD, so that would a bad choice. and what, 3 isnt in openbsd? but yes, i did think ?x might be better. > You don't say? :-) i do indeed, and i mean it. i honestly found the 4.3 BSD Reno supplementary docs (or UNIX V7 volume 2 with a BSD Daemon on the cover) in the library here more helpful than most of the OpenBSD documentation. some stuff on vi from a tar on some google group was also good (reminds me, vi gets confused and crashes if you repeatedly open the same file.) > manual page form certainly important for someone looking to maintain the documentation: but as someone who mostly just wants to read it, i really couldnt give a damn what format it is in, so long as i can page it with a single command. now, and index of terms, now that would impress me. > not too long ago, exactly as you are asking for. > Improving mandoc(1) such that it becomes able to handle > man-pages-posix ugh, seriously. first i say mount(8) and all the devs see is mount(2). then i say man(1) and you see mandoc(1). I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR DOCUMENTATION FORMAT. i use tex and utf8 and thats good enough for me. the guy who does ports/* doesnt care about your format either, and he regards his creation compudocxmlinfo+ with the same love and care as you do mandoc. he is not going to learn mandoc, and i am not going to learn both mandoc and compudocxmlinfo+ just so i can translate it because every porter has maintained something oh so big and therefore cant be stuffed to translate it either. they are *computer* formats. let the damn machine do the translation. if its mandoc, let man call mandoc, if its html, let man call w3m---but dont call me, goddammit. > > so they still need to be formatted with groff. > > Exactly. Reuben, if you don't see that mandoc output is broken > for these pages, you need to look harder. oh yep, nobody can make suggestions, because you guys dont get paid, oh but your users apparently do get paid to fix your system. ugh, again, you didnt read. THE GROFF OUTPUT IS BROKEN. in some ways *worse* than mandoc.
