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