groff
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Groff] new man-page groff-filenames.7 (filename extensions for roff


From: Werner LEMBERG
Subject: Re: [Groff] new man-page groff-filenames.7 (filename extensions for roff files)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:47:46 +0100 (CET)

>> I'm not sure there's enough here to justify a new man page.
>
> If you do not want a new man-page I can do it as a contrib-project.

I think Keith wonders whether it is useful to have a *separate* man
page, or whether it is better to integrate the information into the
existing man pages.

>> > These extensions are fixed in all Unix-like operating systems.
>>
>> I don't think they're are fixed in that many things don't care what
>> extension is used.
>
> Man-page filenames need the fixed structure in order to find and
> read them.

I have the same concerns as you, Keith.  Bernd is right that *some*
are fixed, but roff documents themselves are only loosely following
some conventions w.r.t. file extensions.

> Meanwhile groff-filenames.man is ready.  I can publish it.

Do you have a link to the completed man page?  For consistency, the
man page's name should be `groff_filenames', BTW.

> I think this man-page does not do any harm.  But a lacking
> documentation is a weakness.  Imagine what would happen in Linux
> systems without the FHS.

Well, the are regularly big changes to FHS.  It's a very moving target
and probably not a good example.  A better one is TDS, the TeX
Directory Structure.

> I could also use this documentation as part of groffer.  Reliable
> filename extensions would be very nice for grog and groffer.

Besides man pages, there aren't reliable extensions AFAIK.  My gut
feeling is that groffer should use the `file' and/or the `grog'
program to properly detect the contents of an input file.

What do others think?


    Werner



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]