Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email email@example.com
From: Jason McIntyre (jmckerhand.co.uk)
Date: Fri Aug 29 2008 - 10:37:08 CDT
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 02:24:42PM +0000, hyjial wrote:
> > renaming the files is probably not a great option, so unless someone
> > hacks in the support to man(1), it will probably stay that way.
> Why so ? I mean : why isn't renaming files a
> suitable option ? Apologies for such a candid
> question if it turns out to be labelled as ``stupid''.
because then the people that look after dealing with X have more work on
their plate when importing the source.
> Right now, man(1) looks at the file name and
> decides what its fate will be according to a series
> of rules given in man.conf(5). This at least is
> what comes first after having read both
> manpages. I've not read the code. Making
> man(1) support X conventions would require 1/
> a change in man.conf(5) format - a new keyword
> would be needed-and 2/ man(1) to look *into* the
man.conf can;t handle anything like that just now. man(1) would have to
look into the file, as you say. and, as i said, that means someone has
to volunteer their time to get it working.