On 10.11.2020 23:04, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 19:28:41 +0100
> From: Kamil Rytarowski <ka...@netbsd.org>
> Message-ID: <c4db1f9d-85ee-f90a-2ea0-c1a6448b3...@netbsd.org>
>
> | I hope this is a typo, and not the indication that you forgot how to use
> | the cat-pages at all and miss a computer to cross-check how these files
> | are named.
>
> As in my reply to Mouse, I just didn't bother to check, I did what I
> did, and tested it, and it worked. But:
>
.0 is since ever. I couldn't grep any other suffixes in projects, thus
one BSD4.3 Reno snapshot has a bunch of files with custom endings.
Assuming that this knowledge is from Reno times, it was not refreshed
since 1990.
cat-pages concept is so legacy that as far as I can tell, nobody
bothered to standardize it in any specification in late 80ties or later.
> | cat-pages always finish with .0
>
> that works even better. Even more readable (I guess there's a difference
> in the method used to display the file).
>
So you just confirmed to have a lot of opinions and just started to
(re)learn how to use cat-pages at all...
I inform you that you were happy to render your cat page with mandoc(1).
> | Personally, I miss ditroff, as I have got some documentation in this
> | format that is not formatted promptly with other tools I checked.
>
> Huh? There's very little that ditroff (which is just a troff implementation
> with a more general set of output drivers than the original troff had, that's
> the "di" - device independant) can format that groff does differently (groff
> has many extensions, but if they're not being used, that's harmless).
>
> You do need the appropriate macros (whatever the source assumes) of course.
> And you need the appropriate pre-processors (if any are used).
>
groff is not compatible.
> | I didn't differentiate MKCATPAGES=yes from catpages support.
>
> Exactly. That's what various people have been telling you.
>
I am surprised that the proposal to remove MK${FOO} is read as removal
of the Makefile conditionals and keep ${FOO} in the base. With that
bizarre interpretation the whole proposal renders into useless idea.
I would be very surprised to interpret that e.g. proposal to remove
MKX11 would not mean to remove X11 from the base but to enable it by
default.
