Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 01:25:24 +0000 From: derek thomas <derekmthomas@outlook.com> To: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Cc: Frank Steinborn <steinex@nognu.de>, Frank Steinborn <steinex@nognu.de> Subject: Re: Man Page BSD-ism And Terminal Width Message-ID: <DM5PR22MB060453A24A43BBCDBF6DB5D6C0EA0@DM5PR22MB0604.namprd22.prod.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: <20170504004932.GA31346@krenn.local> References: <DM5PR22MB0604B7BC7AF0B325C639B8C5C0160@DM5PR22MB0604.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>, <20170504004932.GA31346@krenn.local>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> On May 3, 2017, at 18:49, Frank Steinborn <steinex@nognu.de> wrote: > > derek thomas <derekmthomas@outlook.com> wrote: >> Not all man pages on my system fit the width of my terminal. The MANWIDTH variable as described in man(1) should be the solution, but I've discovered that many if not all man page sources in base at least don't seem to respect the variable. As though width was hard-coded. Other sources do respect it, such as /usr/share/man/man1/nroff.1.gz, and notably others in ports. So I suppose there is some FreeBSD-ism going on in the source format. >> >> I ruled out my processing pipeline. >> nroff -man [sourcefile] demonstrates the same differences in files. >> >> Should I dig further for a proper man-macro code fix? Or am I overlooking something? Is this expected behaviour? >> >> Thanks > > Hi, > > can you give an example of a manpage in base that does not respect > MANWIDTH? I just tried a few that came into my mind and all worked with > MANWIDTH=tty. > > Best regards, > Frank # No MANPATH-sensitive pages: $ for f in $(basename /bin/*); do read; MANPATH=42; man $f; done # ...Some here though: for f in $(find /usr/src/contrib -name '*.[1-8]'; do printf "Try %s or CTRL-C:" $f; read; MANPATH=42; man $f; done Thanks, -Derekhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?DM5PR22MB060453A24A43BBCDBF6DB5D6C0EA0>