> Also, how will we proceed when we will consider that this automake
> migration is ready for merge into master? The normal process would
> be to squash all the commits into a single one on master, but given
> the high number of files impacted, it might be better to have all
> the commits into ma
> Von: "Werner LEMBERG"
>
> > We have an unlucky usage for writing man-page names as `*.man'
> > without mentioning the man-page section. That makes most man-page
> > sources in groff unreasonable
> >
> > I propose to use change this naming scheme `*.man' into
> > `*.n' and `*.n' into `*.'.
>
>> I like that suggestion. Please file an issue in the bug tracker so
>> that it is not lost.
>
> What do you mean with bug tracker?
https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?group=groff
Werner
Hi all,
On Tue, Oct 07 2014 at 08:00:41 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>> Both files `groff.man' as `groff.1n' and `groff.7n' as source and as
>>> `groff.1' and `groff.7' after compiling.
>>
>> The "compiling" is the substitution of `@g@', for example? Why not
>> groff.1.in, echoing Makefile.in and
Werner,
On Wed, Oct 08 2014 at 11:34:26 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> Also, how will we proceed when we will consider that this automake
>> migration is ready for merge into master? The normal process would
>> be to squash all the commits into a single one on master, but given
>> the high number
