Re: Rendering the Bash man page with commercial Unix/System V nroff

On 2/12/24 4:26 PM, G. Branden Robinson wrote: Hi Chet, At 2024-02-12T14:45:30-0500, Chet Ramey wrote: On 2/12/24 2:00 PM, G. Branden Robinson wrote: I see that most of my proposed man page changes from the recent series landed in the devel branch. Thanks! I did notice that this one and its

Re: Rendering the Bash man page with commercial Unix/System V nroff

[self-follow-up] At 2024-02-12T13:00:43-0600, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > I'm also attaching a sample document that people can use to test the > nroff(1)/man(7) on their system. If I had a nickel for every time I forget the attachment... > Here's how I tested it with groff, mandoc(1), Heirloom

Re: Rendering the Bash man page with commercial Unix/System V nroff

Hi Chet, At 2024-02-12T14:45:30-0500, Chet Ramey wrote: > On 2/12/24 2:00 PM, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > I see that most of my proposed man page changes from the recent > > series landed in the devel branch. Thanks! > > > > I did notice that this one and its follow-up did not. Was that on >

Re: Rendering the Bash man page with commercial Unix/System V nroff

On 2/12/24 2:00 PM, G. Branden Robinson wrote: Hi Chet, I see that most of my proposed man page changes from the recent series landed in the devel branch. Thanks! I did notice that this one and its follow-up did not. Was that on purpose? Is there something I can do to improve the patch? I

Rendering the Bash man page with commercial Unix/System V nroff (was: [PATCH 17/18] doc/bash.1: migrate to strings for troublesome characters)

Hi Chet, I see that most of my proposed man page changes from the recent series landed in the devel branch. Thanks! I did notice that this one and its follow-up did not. Was that on purpose? Is there something I can do to improve the patch? The reason I submitted 17/18 and 18/18 is because, o