> renaming the files is probably not a great option, so unless someone
> hacks
in the support to man(1), it will probably stay that way.
Why so ? I mean :
why isn't renaming files a
suitable option ? Apologies for such a candid
question if it turns out to be labelled as ``stupid''.
Right now, man(1) looks
at the file name and
decides what its fate will be according to a series
of
rules given in man.conf(5). This at least is
what comes first after having
read both
manpages. I've not read the code. Making
man(1) support X
conventions would require 1/
a change in man.conf(5) format - a new keyword
would be needed-and 2/ man(1) to look *into* the
file.
A sh(1) script could
handle it automatically.
The one that follows targets an existing setup,
it
just stands as a proof of concept :
###
#!/bin/sh
for file in $(find .) ; do
if test ! -d $file ; then
if test "$(head -1 $file | \
sed -e
's/"/\"/' -e "s/\'/\\\'/")" = "\'\\\" t" ; then
# name-chaging
code here
fi
fi
done
exit 0
###
I'd be interested in working on
that if others
consider it a reliable solution.
Hyjial
_____________________________________________________________________________
Envoyez avec Yahoo! Mail. Une boite mail plus intelligente
http://mail.yahoo.fr
