Hi Alex, At 2022-11-10T11:40:26+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > On 11/10/22 09:56, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Not really. .P (or .PP, which I did try) would break the formatting. > Let's show a bit mre of the current page: > > • The underlying filesystem must support ID‐mapped mounts. Currently, > the following filesystems support ID‐mapped mounts: > > • xfs(5) (since Linux 5.12) > • ext4(5) (since Linux 5.12) > • FAT (since Linux 5.12) > • btrfs(5) (since Linux 5.15) > • ntfs3 (since Linux 5.15) > • f2fs (since Linux 5.18) > • erofs (since Linux 5.19) > • overlayfs (ID‐mapped lower and upper layers supported > since Linux 5.19) > > • The mount must not already be ID‐mapped. This also implies > that the ID mapping of a mount cannot be altered. > > And this is what happens with PP: > > • The underlying filesystem must support ID‐mapped mounts. > Currently, the following filesystems support ID‐mapped > mounts: > > • xfs(5) (since Linux 5.12) > • ext4(5) (since Linux 5.12) > • FAT (since Linux 5.12) > • btrfs(5) (since Linux 5.15) > • ntfs3 (since Linux 5.15) > • f2fs (since Linux 5.18) > • erofs (since Linux 5.19) > • overlayfs (ID‐mapped lower and upper layers > supported since Linux 5.19) > > • The mount must not already be ID‐mapped. This also implies > that the ID mapping of a mount cannot be altered. > > So IP is necessary to let man(7) know that all what follows is still > part of the bulleted item in the list. Otherwise, I need to specify > the indentation in RS, which I don't want.
Quite right. I didn't have this initial context and agree with your solution, given the constraints. > > In the event you end up needing to retreat to raw roff for this, I > > would replace the "empty" `IP` call with a simple `sp` request. > > This is for lists, which is a very common thing in the pages. I don't > want them to be filled with 'sp' requests, and even less contributors > to have to think about it :) No worries. I simply don't want people to feel like they have no recourse. Kernighan complained of Pascal, "there is no escape". That's not true of man(7). > Yep, I'm waiting for them. They'll be for after 1.23.0, I guess, > right? They would be. I haven't yet formally proposed them. What's in groff(7) is a demonstration and proof of concept in a page that already is not a model document per the suggestion in groff_man_style(7). > It's definitely not in groff from git HEAD. Not in the macro package, no. > > composes in obvious ways with paragraphing macros before and after, > > and with relative insets. This is cleaner, in my opinion, than > > mdoc(7)'s '-compact' and '-offset' options to its `Bl` macro. This > > has come up before[1]. Maybe I'll take another run at the icy wall > > of conservatism that greets all such things after groff 1.23 is > > finalized. > > Yeah, makes sense. A month or so before releasing is not the best > moment to add new features. No, but Deri's improvement of gropdf's font file resolution procedure for embedded fonts has pulled on a loose thread and is having interesting results. Not, mind you, anything to do with man(7). I had a footnote for that, but it ended up 140 lines long. I'll start a new thread for it. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
