manpage dbx

[Joost van Baal]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 11:06:39AM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Monday 25 June 2001 10:56, Joost van Baal wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 09:37:58AM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > > What i am going to do (soon):
> > > - - make dbx man pages for other program that i wrote
> >
> > Why?  I myself am pretty happy with the current .pod format.  pod doesn't
> > support a lot of features, but, imho, it supports _just_ what one needs
> > in a manpage.  Typesetting it is much less resource intensive than
> > typesetting a dbx manpage.  Furthermore, as I said before, I'd very much
> > like to use _one_ format for manpages.
> >
> > Anybody else has an opinion on this?
> 
> we currently have already 2 formats, pod and nroff... does 3 formats
> make that much a difference?

Up till recently, we only _maintained_ 1 format: pod.  (And automatically
generated troff from that.)  I'd like to stay with maintaining one format.
If one format turns out to be better than the other, I believe this will
be true for all distributed manpages.  In case the best format turns
out to be dbx, I believe we should ship _all_ manpages in dbx.

> i like dbx, because is can be integrated with the manual's very well...

I don't like to ship a manpage twice: in the Lire User Manual and as a
stand alone manual.  I believe that in general, if a unix user wants to
read a manpage, she fires up a manpage viewer.  People don't go look in
the Lire User Manual to read the lr_xml2pdf manpage.

Bye,

Joost


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to development-request at logreport.org with a subject of
"unsubscribe". Trouble? Send an email with subject "help" to
development-request at logreport.org