Hi Chris, Chris Bennett wrote on Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 08:26:01PM -0500:
> Older system with October 30 snapshot. > Since there was a delay with snapshot packages, > I built some ports while waiting, so I added groff. > $ which nroff > /usr/bin/nroff Aha, you didn't remove base groff. So now you have the same groff twice on your system, once in /usr and once in /usr/local. That shouldn't be a serious problem, except that it's messy, so you should clean it up, see http://www.openbsd.org/faq/current.html#20101019 > $ export PERLDOCDEBUG=1 > $ perldoc /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/perl/pod/perl.pod [...] > About to run /usr/bin/pod2man --lax \ > /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/perl/pod/perl.pod | mandoc -man Good, so you have the correct Pod::Perlpod installed. In your original mail, you said: :: perldoc manpage says perldoc is equivalent to: :: pod2man script.pl | nroff -man | $PAGER :: but that produces a very ugly and wrong output. But the following two look very similar: > $ perldoc Space_To_Underscore.pl # <- this is using mandoc > $ pod2man Space_To_Underscore.pl | nroff -man | more Diffing them, i see only the following differences: - Mandoc formats the header line better, not like: SPACE_TO_UNDERSUser(Contributed Perl DocumeSPACEoTO_UNDERSCORE(1) - A few blank line differences, because mandoc handles blank lines in man(7) headers and footers like groff-1.20, not like 1.15. - Mandoc doesn't put an additional header/footer pair in the middle of the page. - Mandoc doesn't put pages numbers into the footer line. The rest of the output is identical. What exactly is "very ugly and wrong" here? Yours, Ingo
