Re: bin/49485 (mandoc fails to fail if the word No appears unquoted in a reference)

[Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR bin/49485; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>
To: NetBSD bugtracking <gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/49485 (mandoc fails to fail if the word No appears unquoted
 in a reference)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 08:22:14 +0100

 On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:39:12PM +0000, Antti Kantee wrote:
 > On 16/12/14 23:29, wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost wrote:
 > >Synopsis: mandoc fails to fail if the word No appears unquoted in a reference
 > >
 > >State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
 > >State-Changed-By: wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost
 > >State-Changed-When: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 23:29:18 +0000
 > >State-Changed-Why:
 > >Thanks for the laugh!
 > >(If you really care about the groff misbehaviour,
 > >we can reopen that, but I don't expect it to be fixed
 > >in NetBSD. It would be wiser to report it to groff upstream
 > >instead.)
 > 
 > I'm a bit confused when the same thing is described both as "Not a bug" and
 > "misbehaviour".
 
 As I see it:
 
 * Having to quote "No" on a macro line is not a bug.
 * That the rest of the man page is broken with groff is a bug.
 * That mandoc behaves better than groff is not a bug.
 
 The man pages in NetBSD are translated for viewing with mandoc, so the
 groff bug is not important in my eyes.
 
 > The practical aspect I *am* interested in if it's mandated that manpages
 > should be tested to render properly with both mandoc and groff before
 > committing them.
 
 IMO, for NetBSD, viewing with mandoc is enough.
  Thomas