On 10.11.2020 10:30, Robert Elz wrote: > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 00:05:32 +0100 > From: Kamil Rytarowski <ka...@netbsd.org> > Message-ID: <c1ef7af4-c413-667a-464c-b40393cac...@netbsd.org> > > | Do you use it? Do you know anybody who uses it on NetBSD-current? > > I might start. Particularly for the pages that mandoc can't format properly. >
The mandoc upstream worked hard already a few years back to be a compatible drop-in replacement tool for formatting virtually any manual pages. If you still can find any man-page that is unsupported by mandoc, please let me know and I will report it. > | I don't trust that these people are tracking or using -current that used > | to have broken MKCATPAGES. > > That's irrelevant, no-one is complaining about that being removed. Don't > you understand the difference? > Removal of the whole cat-pages support was implied and intended in my initial proposal. I was also privately asked by wiz@ to remember to drop cat dirs from etc/mtree. > | html pages are not integrated in man.conf(5) or man(1). cat pages are > | integrated and preferred over man pages. > > What the default man.conf should contain is another issue which can > be discussed. Aside from that it would be dumb to have it refer to > catN/* pages if the catman command were to no longer exist, that's > a completely separate question from removing catman(8). > This was intended to be removed too. Also what's the point of catman(8) if cat dirs were intended to be gone? > And in any case, if you don't generate the cat pages, then "preferred > over man pages" is harmless, is it not? Or is your "man" command somehow > not working when the cat pages don't exist? > The cat pages are passed through cat(1) and thus cannot be (easily) reformatted dynamically. > > | For example patch(1) had removed SCCS support silently, > > That probably shouldn't have happened. But patch is code imported > from upstream, right? That has other considerations. > patch(1) is a local program, not polled from any upstream. NetBSD is also not the only BSD to drop SCCS support. > | I sense a general difference in the view point. We are apparently > | trading better performance on a historical computer in possibly > | non-existent setup anymore in two or more decades + frustrating users vs > | good user experience on anything modern, customizable and compatible > | with other OSs. > > I fail to see any frustration (other than this useless debate), or any > way that could even happen in a default setup. > I don't want to drag regular users to mailing lists. I was asked by mrg@ to revert the MKCATPAGES removal and add a new proposal that is more precise.
