Re: Proposal to remove catman(8)

[John Nemeth <jnemeth%cue.bc.ca@localhost>]

On Nov 10, 19:28, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
} On 10.11.2020 12:59, Robert Elz wrote:
} >     Date:        Tue, 10 Nov 2020 11:14:12 +0100
} >     From:        Kamil Rytarowski <kamil%netbsd.org@localhost>
} >     Message-ID:  <ca45be8b-018c-ef0f-3330-14e4785eb851%netbsd.org@localhost>
} > 
} >   | If you still can find any man-page that is unsupported by mandoc, please
} >   | let me know and I will report it.
} > 
} > That was done (by someone else, sorry, I have forgotten who that was)
} > earlier in this thread.   groff_char(7)   Because it is an externally
} > maintained man page, we cannot just alter its format, and I really don't
} > think you're going to convince anyone to make mandoc handle:
} > 
} >   .  di CC
} >   .  ie c\\$3 \{\
} >   .    nop \\&\\$3\c
} >   .    \" The \x values assure that oversized symbols don't
} >   .    \" overlap vertically.  The constant 1.5p is heuristic.
} >   .    nop \x'(\w'('*0 - ((\\n[.cht]u - \\n[rst]u - 1.5p) >? 0))'\c
} >   .    nop \x'((\\n[.cdp]u + \\n[rsb]u - 1.5p) >? 0)'\c
} >   .    nop \h'(\\n[c1]u - \\n[.k]u)'\\*[CH]\c
} >   .    nop \h'(\\n[c2]u - \\n[.k]u)'\\$2\c
} >   .  \}
} >   .  el \{\
} >   .    nop (N/A)\c
} >   .    nop \h'(\\n[c1]u - \\n[.k]u)'\\*[CH]\c
} >   .  \}
} >   .  nop \h'(\\n[c3]u - \\n[.k]u)'\\$4\c
} >   .  nop \h'(\\n[c4]u - \\n[.k]u)'\\$5\c
} >   .  br
} >   .  di
} > 
} > [that's just one piece of a larger macro definition in that page]
} > 
} > On the other hand, after a simple
} > 
} > 	groff -man -T ascii /usr/share/man/man7/groff_char.7 \
} > 			  > /usr/share/man/cat7/groff_char.7
} > 
} > I now have a man page I can (better anyway) read.   If I had the time
} > to read up on all the groff -T options, it would probably be possible
} > yo make something quite readable.
} 
} 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. It's not a bad thing to forget how to use them, but I'm
} unsure whether the reason of blocking the removal (post-removal) is an
} optimal motivation for relearning. cat-pages always finish with .0
} (unless compressed) and that way they are integrated into man.conf(5).

     There's a popular expression:  "When you're in a hole, stop digging."

} Other tools like groff and nroff are around and not intended to be removed.
} 
} Personally, I miss ditroff, as I have got some documentation in this
} format that is not formatted promptly with other tools I checked. If
} someone has a good sources of ditroff, I support the import to src/.

     You might want to look up Heirloom troff.

} >   | Removal of the whole cat-pages support was implied
} > 
} > It wasn't.
} 
} I wrote:
} 
} "I propose to drop the support for MKCATPAGES=yes. catpages are
} preformatted .txt files that happen to contain manual pages and are
} cat(1)able.
} 
} Over the past more than 5 years, I was the only person reporting any
} fallout and fixing the regressions in the MKCATPAGES=yes build failures.
} 
} I'm going to switch to dynamic manual pages formatting through mandoc(1)
} as superior, allowing to tune the behavior of the display.
} "
} 
} I didn't differentiate MKCATPAGES=yes from catpages support. I also
} wrote explicitly to use dynamic manual pages afterward. But I accept
} that I could be ambiguous in the proposal.

     As people writing posts, we always know what meaning we intend
to convey.  People might misinterpret what we say for a variety of
reasons, such as insufficient command of the language (this goes
both ways), insufficient background information, we were simply
unclear, etc.  When multiple competant people don't pickup on the
intended meaning, then it is most likely the latter, which is ALWAYS
the fault of the poster, not the reader.  At that point, it behooves
the poster to clarify, and not in any way imply that the reader is
at fault.

} FreeBSD implements it by disabling cat-pages behind the scenes. I find
} this approach waste of time in 2020. It could be maybe tentative in 2011
} when implemented in FreeBSD.

     This is completely and utterly irrelevant, we are not FreeBSD.
Just because they take away features, doesn't mean we should.  If
they add something that is good, we may choose to adopt it based
on our own standards; however, this has nothing to do with taking
away features.

}-- End of excerpt from Kamil Rytarowski