[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mandoc-discuss
Subject:    Re: pending open issues
From:       Jason McIntyre <jmc () kerhand ! co ! uk>
Date:       2010-07-27 10:42:27
Message-ID: 20100727101815.GD21455 () bramka ! kerhand ! co ! uk
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:03:21PM +0200, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote:
> 
> Ah, my error... I thought you were talking to Free/DragonFly.  The 
> mandoc page hasn't changed for these sections.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that this reasoning is my own, based on the existence of 
> EXIT STATUS in NetBSD groff manuals.  This was probably before I knew of 
> the balkanisation of mdoc.samples.
> 
> So, from what I gather
> 
>  (1) Net uses EXIT STATUS
>  (2) DragonFly/Free uses DIAGNOSTICS
>  (3) Open uses DESCRIPTION
>  (4) GNU/Linux uses chaos
> 
> Is that correct?
> 

no. i can't speak for dragonfly, but netbsd and freebsd both use EXIT
VALUES and DIAGNOSTICS. however i cannot find anywhere in their
documentation that says EXIT STATUS is valid (mdoc.template perhaps
being an exception, but that is not documentation).

from what sacha said earlier, it sounds like dragonfly do this too.

openbsd use DIAGNOSTICS, but not EXIT STATUS.

i am deliberating whether it's worth reinstating EXIT STATUS, but i
can;t get anyone authorative from these projects to say what "official
policy" is. at least:

	net: wiz? joerg?
	free: i have no real contact with freebsd people. i don;t know
		who to ask.
	dragon: sacha, who is at least replying to this thread ;)

it would be nice if between us we could agree on sth sane.

jmc
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]