Hi Ingo! On 7/3/22 23:44, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > [added Branden, as he was involved in discussions regarding man3type; > Branden, you might want to visit this thread from the begining, as I > only copied the minimum to reply; it's in linux-man@] > > On 6/20/22 15:49, Ingo Schwarze wrote: [...] >> That said, other projects are of course free to have such pages if >> they want to.  The mandoc(1) program is also able to handle paths like >> "man3/id_t.3type".  It will consider that page to be *both* in section >> "3" (as specified by the directory name) and in section "3type" (as >> specified by the file name and by the .TH macro).  I would consider >> it better style to keep section names consistent, i.e. to use either >> "man3/id_t.3" .TH id_t 3 or "man3type/id_t.3type" .TH id_t 3type, >> but it's not a big deal: since many systems (in particular various >> Linux distros) suffer from such inconsistencies, handling such >> inconsistencies gracefully is an important feature that certainly >> won't get removed. > > I considered[6] using man3type, and used man3 in the end just because > when in doubt I opted for the smallest change.  Knowing that it breaks > mandoc(1), I'll definitely move to . > > [6]: > > I fixed it: And Debian seems to work fine with man3type/ and man2type/ out of the box, so I prefer it this way. I hope that other projects follow the example; and that packagers/distributions also create subsection directories, and don't undo my work. Cheers, Alex -- Alejandro Colomar