Hi Werner,
Werner LEMBERG wrote on Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:21:43AM +0100:
>> And at this point, the man(7) language is better maintained and
>> appears to have more of a future than texinfo, which has been a lame
>> duck now for at least half a decade, probably longer:
> Uh, oh, no idea why you
On Monday, 17 February 2020 13:32:36 GMT Dave Kemper wrote:
> Considering that groff's own documentation is (perversely? ironically?
> choose your own adverb) written in Texinfo format, a discussion of the
> merits of that format could be considered on topic here (if a bit
> academic, since no one
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 08:56:25PM +1100, John Gardner wrote:
> That's not what I'm talking about. In Emacs, I'm used to smashing `c-h o`
> to bring up the documentation for the symbol at point. In info(1), I've no
> idea where or what to even begin searching for to find a symbol's
> documentation.
> I won't say more on this topic. We are on a groff list.
Considering that groff's own documentation is (perversely? ironically?
choose your own adverb) written in Texinfo format, a discussion of the
merits of that format could be considered on topic here (if a bit
academic, since no one is champ
> ??? Have you actually used stand-alone `info` recently? In its
> standard configuration, you only need the arrow keys together with the
> enter key to navigate.
That's not what I'm talking about. In Emacs, I'm used to smashing `c-h o`
to bring up the documentation for the symbol at point. In i
>> The info stuff alienates anyone who is not an emacs fan
>
> The standalone info(1) program, though? Please. I'm not going to
> learn a second set of keybindings just to navigate online help.
??? Have you actually used stand-alone `info` recently? In its
standard configuration, you only n
I don't know that I have the oomph to do it but one of the things I wanted
to do in my retirement was convert all the stuff that is in debian back
from info to man(7).
I *hate* info. It has made Linux less available to a lot of people.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 02:07:58PM +1100, John Gardner wrote
> The info stuff alienates anyone who is not an emacs fan
I'm an Emacs fan, and I also find the Info system abhorrent and confusing.
It's a different story if you're using Emacs, because the Info system is
well-integrated and as easy to navigate as any other buffer (and most Emacs
users will have
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:21:43AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > And at this point, the man(7) language is better maintained and
> > appears to have more of a future than texinfo, which has been a lame
> > duck now for at least half a decade, probably longer:
> >
>
> Uh, oh, no idea why you
Ingo,
> From: Ingo Schwarze [mailto:schwa...@usta.de]
> Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2020 2:26 PM
Free Software?
--
> Oh. Seeing you ask a question about the formatting of a manual page
> on a public list concerned with free software, i jumped to the conclusion
> that you wanted to pub
> And at this point, the man(7) language is better maintained and
> appears to have more of a future than texinfo, which has been a lame
> duck now for at least half a decade, probably longer:
>
Uh, oh, no idea why you bash texinfo from time to time. Currently, it
receives more active developme
Hi Jeff,
Jeff Conrad wrote on Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 03:45:16PM -0800:
> I neglected to mention that the page is for a very specialized command
> and is unlikely to exist in other than PDF format except on my system.
> Everyone using it so far is running Windows, so no one is likely to say
> "man "
On Saturday, 15 February 2020 23:45:16 GMT Jeff Conrad wrote:
> > Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2020 8:01 AM
> >
> > It's non-portable because that other person might use a man(7) formatter
> > that doesn't support .am or .pdfbookmark, or not in the same way as groff.
> >
> > > What's far more non
> Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2020 8:01 AM
>
> It's non-portable because that other person might use a man(7) formatter
> that doesn't support .am or .pdfbookmark, or not in the same way as groff.
> > What's far more nonstandard ...
> Yes, that is very evil. Never try to be clever in manual pa
Hi Jeff,
Jeff Conrad wrote on Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 08:14:15PM -0800:
> Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> Jeff Conrad wrote:
>>> .am SH
>>> .pdfbookmark 1 "\&\\$*"
>>> ..
>>> .am SS
>>> .pdfbookmark 2 "\&\\$*"
>>> ..
>> Just don't do that. Never use low-level roff stuff in manual pages,
>> don't even thin
Ingo,
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2020 10:46 AM
> > .am SH
> > .pdfbookmark 1 "\&\\$*"
> > ..
> > .am SS
> > .pdfbookmark 2 "\&\\$*"
> > ..
>
> Just don't do that. Never use low-level roff stuff in manual pages,
> don't even think about it. This makes your manual pages non-portable.
I'm not
Ingo Schwarze wrote in
<20200214184532.gj92...@athene.usta.de>:
|Hi Jeff,
|
|Jeff Conrad wrote on Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 03:45:10PM -0800:
|
|> A major drawback to manual pages formatted using the man macros is the
|> lack of bookmarks in a PDF file. A quick and dirty way to get bookmarks
|>
Hi Jeff,
Jeff Conrad wrote on Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 03:45:10PM -0800:
> A major drawback to manual pages formatted using the man macros is the
> lack of bookmarks in a PDF file. A quick and dirty way to get bookmarks
> appears to be adding
>
> .am SH
> .pdfbookmark 1 "\&\\$*"
> ..
> .am SS
> .pd
Jeff Conrad wrote in
:
|A major drawback to manual pages formatted using the man macros is the
|lack of bookmarks in a PDF file. A quick and dirty way to get bookmarks
|appears to be adding
|
|.am SH
|.pdfbookmark 1 "\&\\$*"
|..
|.am SS
|.pdfbookmark 2 "\&\\$*"
|..
Why quick and dirty?
A major drawback to manual pages formatted using the man macros is the
lack of bookmarks in a PDF file. A quick and dirty way to get bookmarks
appears to be adding
.am SH
.pdfbookmark 1 "\&\\$*"
..
.am SS
.pdfbookmark 2 "\&\\$*"
..
to the beginning of the man page source (the PDFHREF.VIEW.LEADIN
20 matches
Mail list logo
