Package: vim Version: 2:9.0.0242-1 Severity: wishlist Tags: upstream X-Debbugs-Cc: alx.manpa...@gmail.com, gr...@gnu.org
Hi, man(7) pages with a filename as foo.man are interpreted by vim as written in man(7). However, if the filename is written as foo.7, vim thinks they are written in roff(7). That's not a big issue, but it's not really correct: although manual pages written in pure roff(7) will work with man(1), it's very rare to find such pages in the wild. Vim could be fixed to realize that .[0-9] files are man(7) pages, and highlight them as such. I realized that vim didn't consider those as true man(7) pages when I wrote some pages with the *.man extension for some tests. The highlighting is different, and in some ways inferior. Vim highlights macros, embedded tbl(1), and comments, within the manual pages when it thinks they are written in roff(7). But when it thinks they are written in man(7), it doesn't highlight any of those things, and it's a bit more difficult to read. Cheers, Alex -- Package-specific info: --- real paths of main Vim binaries --- /usr/bin/vi is /usr/bin/vim.basic /usr/bin/vim is /usr/bin/vim.basic -- System Information: Debian Release: bookworm/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 5.18.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU threads; PREEMPT) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE Locale: LANG=C.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages vim depends on: ii libacl1 2.3.1-1 ii libc6 2.34-7 ii libgpm2 1.20.7-10 ii libselinux1 3.4-1+b1 ii libsodium23 1.0.18-1 ii libtinfo6 6.3+20220423-2 ii vim-common 2:9.0.0242-1 ii vim-runtime 2:9.0.0242-1 vim recommends no packages. Versions of packages vim suggests: ii universal-ctags [ctags] 5.9.20210829.0-1 pn vim-doc <none> pn vim-scripts <none> -- no debconf information