X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	mwoehlke <mwoehlke AT tibco DOT com>
Subject:	Um... what format are Cygwin manpages?
Date:	Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:59:18 -0500
Lines:	19
Message-ID:	<ebd0om$gjh$1@sea.gmane.org>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.5) Gecko/20060719 Thunderbird/1.5.0.5 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

I thought I'd have a crack at fixing the manpage for printf(3) (see 
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-08/msg00288.html), but when I opened 
it, I was a bit shocked to discover that it is only *MARGINALLY* in 
troff format. I do note that other manpages seem more "normal" (man1 
pages, for instance)... So, is this just "how the C lib manpages are"?

I am not going to submit a "patch" on this mess. If I do anything with 
it, I am going to submit a proper troff document. Given how much work I 
would have to do to fix the existing page, I am much more inclined to 
take my printf.3 from my Linux box and adjust it into consistency with 
Cygwin's printf() instead. I'm willing to clean up the existing manpage, 
but I think the style of the Linux manpage would be an improvement (what 
we have looks like it came from HP-UX or something).

Any opinions?

-- 
Matthew
This is not the list you're looking for. -- Perversion of Obi Wan


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -