Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2025 16:20:40 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 289245] usr.bin/man: support -l option Message-ID: <bug-289245-227-hIEqcPXaYJ@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-289245-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=289245 --- Comment #5 from Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@usta.de> --- At the end of the previous comment, i meant "so *no* changes made in this respect." This comment mentions a few aspects that are not directly related to the patch and should be dealt with separately; i'm mentioning them here to reduce the risk that they are forgotten. 1. The option -t is an archaic way of asking for PostScript output that was mostly used in AT&T Research Unix from 1977 to 1989. While man-db and Oracle Solaris still support -t, the modern way to select PostScript output is "-T ps", also because more people want "-T pdf" nowadays than PostScript. Not sure what, if anything, should be done about that - i'm merely mentioning it FYI. For details, see https://mandoc.bsd.lv/man/man.options.1.html . 2. In the mandoc implementation of man(1), the options -k and -w can be combined. Saying -kw, you get the absolute pathnames of all manual pages files matched by the search, and i think that makes a lot of sense logically. The man-db implementation of man(1) rejects -kw just like FreeBSD though. Again, just FYI. 3. In the mandoc implementation of man(1), -l overrides -w, so -lw does the same as -l and ignores -w. In man-db, -lw simply prints out the arguments, one per line. Just FYI, none of these behaviours is particularly useful. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-289245-227-hIEqcPXaYJ>