[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