> personally i would like to patch man so that it calls make (with a > special makefile), so it could be extended
ugh. look at the problem of man-pages-posix. your mandoc program cant format them, so you use another program to output the old output format of man, and then man reads those. now, in those slides you linked to, you one of the virtues you of mandoc you were extolling was its ability to output in html, pdf, the works. so, do you update man to handle these new formatted pages? no. oh, so will you remove its ability to handle the old formatted pages? no. oh, so will you at least strongly discourage their use? no, you say they *must* be used instead of man sources, and you will defend to your death any patch to man to make it able to show its own output. W. T. F. > easier to handle for porters argh!!! this is my point! if you arent going to bother to write documentation for man, then write man for your documentation! !@#$%^&* > Try to write complete sentences that are as clear as possible, the first time i tried to write sentences i was told to either provide code or shutup. > Regarding v7man... Anything wrong with that? that is volume 1. i.m.o. the second installment was better.
