Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > DJ Lucas wrote: > > >> OK. But I am still under the impression that is the expected future. >> That doesn't change the fact that it is totally incorrect as written and >> needs to corrected to show the proper state. >> > > Well, Debian certainly won't switch to UTF-8 manual pages until they > release Lenny. And, judging by their graph of release-critical bugs, > this will happen in 9-10 months or so. What they are doing right now is > preparing the infrastructure: a viewer that understands UTF-8 encoded > manual pages, a perl patch so that pod2man can produce them, in the > future they plan to write dpkg helper scripts that actually convert > manual pages at package creation time. Only after that, the switch > becomes possible. > > However, if I were Debian, I would delay the switch even further. Right > now, ISO-8859-1 manual pages can be converted to PostScript directly > with Groff. By converting manual pages to UTF-8, you lose the ability to > print them. Isn't printing a really important feature? ;) > > >>>> Upstream packagers will very likely drop legacy encodings in favor of >>>> UTF-8, though adoption has been slow due to the hacks required to >>>> make the current Man and Groff packages work correctly together. >>>> >>>> >>> I don't know how to comment on this. Modern desktop packages come with >>> DocBook documentation, not manual pages. >>> >>> >> :-) The point of both of the above points is to make known that we will >> be seeing more UTF-8 encoded manual pages...especially with both Debian >> and RedHat going that route. It still needs rewording, or removal. >> > > I vote for removal, especially because MPlayer (a package under rapid > development) still ships with non-UTF-8 manual pages. And while UTF-8 > manual pages may be the future, the timeframe is not defined. > > >> OK. I thought about doing that too, but French man pages include shell >> scripts to do the conversion before installation so it's not a good >> place to show off convert-mans. >> > > Why not? Mention that the equivalent scripts exist in the package, but > that for the sake of demonstration, out "convert-mans" script is used. > > OK. I've taken into account all of the above. While I've shortened the text quite a bit, I think it reads well and all of the important topics are in place. I'm again out of time so it hasn't been thoroughly reviewed...probably a few spelling or grammatical errors, but that is the general idea I think. Again, I ask for review.
-- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
