Re: Proposal to remove catman(8)

[Kamil Rytarowski <kamil%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On 11.11.2020 00:16, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> Kamil Rytarowski <kamil%netbsd.org@localhost> writes:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> That is a ridiculous strawman and not the same thing at all.  MKX11
> means to build X11.  MKCATPAGES means to have the step of generating
> catpages at OS release time.  We don't have a switch to say "don't build
> the tools that could make catpages".   I thought it was obvious that
> your proposal was just "remove the build.sh/Makefile glue that generates
> catpages at release time, and setlist contents that expects them",
> nothing more.
> 

I can only congratulate to ignore the content of my mail, reinterpret
the title and produce an excuse to keep us in 1980.

Citing: usr.sbin/catman/README.hardlinks

+All of this seems like a SMOP, but it doesn't really seem worth doing
+at the moment given that we don't build catpages at all by default and
+they aren't particularly useful to have any more except on the slowest
+of slow hardware. I've left this note so that someone else can take it
+up if they see fit.
+
+ - dholland 20160529

I wish good luck finding user-base/target-audience (if you like, in any
age) that relies on the slowest of slow hardware and cannot use anything
else to study the system documentation.