Re: mandoc shortcomings

["James K. Lowden" <jklowden%schemamania.org@localhost>]

On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:54:54 +0000
David Brownlee <abs%absd.org@localhost> wrote:

> On 16 December 2015 at 03:22, James K. Lowden
> - Use mandoc for everything in base, and ensure everything in base is
> compatible with it. (I would agree that the latter should be a
> prerequisite for the former).
> - For pkgsrc either default to mdoc and have a per package option to
> indicate that package needs more than mandoc can provide (similar to
> the 'need bash as a shell' type options we already have), or just
> default to groff everywhere.

Yes, that's an option.  ISTM it's a lot of work *and* complexity,
because we have to vet all the pages and specify the formatter on a
per-package basis.  It also leaves out dealing with packages not in
pkgsrc, of which there are not a few.  

I'd just like to get back to a place where man Just Works.  The least
amount of work I can imagine would  be to install mandoc inputs in a new
hierarchy /usr/share/mandoc/man[1-9], and have man(1) invoke
mandoc/nroff accordingly.  

Associating an input directory with a formatter is reminiscent of ye
olde cat pages.  Maybe that's easiest?  

One nice feature is that you know you're "done" for any given stage
(base, pkgsrc) when /usr/share/man[1-9]  is empty.  

--jkl