ul(1): Remove references to colcrt(1) and nroff(1)

[fernape]

Summary

Reported in PR 244127

colcrt(1) and nroff(1) where removed in r319664

Remove references to these commands in ul(1) man page.

Test Plan

• mandoc -Tlint clean
• igor clean
• aspell happy
• man ./ul.1 renders the page properly

[gbe]

Thanks for taking responsibility for this PR.

nroff(1) still exists in base, colcrt(1) doesn't not. Please adapt the diff accordingly.

--Gordon

[fernape]

In D26146#580584, @gbe wrote:

Thanks for taking responsibility for this PR.

nroff(1) still exists in base, colcrt(1) doesn't not. Please adapt the diff accordingly.

--Gordon

Thanks for the feedback, Gordon.

I can't find nroff(1) in my CURRENT machine:

[fernape@vm-current ~]$ find / -name nroff 2>/dev/null
uname -a
[fernape@vm-current ~]$ uname -a
FreeBSD vm-current 13.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 13.0-CURRENT #2 r364141: Wed Aug 12 14:46:01 CEST 2020     root@vm-current:/usr/obj/usr/src/amd64.amd64/sys/GENERIC  amd64
[fernape@vm-current ~]$ whereis nroff
nroff:
[fernape@vm-current ~]$

[fernape]

In D26146#580607, @fernape wrote:

In D26146#580584, @gbe wrote:

Thanks for taking responsibility for this PR.

nroff(1) still exists in base, colcrt(1) doesn't not. Please adapt the diff accordingly.

--Gordon

Thanks for the feedback, Gordon.

I can't find nroff(1) in my CURRENT machine:

[fernape@vm-current ~]$ find / -name nroff 2>/dev/null
uname -a
[fernape@vm-current ~]$ uname -a
FreeBSD vm-current 13.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 13.0-CURRENT #2 r364141: Wed Aug 12 14:46:01 CEST 2020     root@vm-current:/usr/obj/usr/src/amd64.amd64/sys/GENERIC  amd64
[fernape@vm-current ~]$ whereis nroff
nroff:
[fernape@vm-current ~]$

Hi again Gordon!

Having a look at /usr/bin/man I see the pipeline can be built to use either mandoc or a flavor of roff. The two possible flavors are:

NROFF='groff -S -P-h -Wall -mtty-char -man'
TROFF='groff -S -man'

So both of them are groff. But groff is not in base. In fact, there is this message in /usr/bin/man:

echo "This manpage needs groff(1) to be rendered" >&2
echo "First install groff(1): " >&2
echo "pkg install groff " >&2

It seems by default we are using mandoc which is in base:

pipeline="mandoc $mandoc_args | $MANPAGER"

Either way, it is weird that we reference nroff(1) in the SEE ALSO section but then we can not see the manual page:

[fernape@vm-current ~]$ man nroff
No manual entry for nroff
[fernape@vm-current ~]$ man 1 nroff
No manual entry for nroff
[fernape@vm-current ~]$

Thanks a lot for helping!

[gbe]

In D26146#595049, @fernape wrote:

In D26146#580607, @fernape wrote:

In D26146#580584, @gbe wrote:

Thanks for taking responsibility for this PR.

nroff(1) still exists in base, colcrt(1) doesn't not. Please adapt the diff accordingly.

--Gordon

Thanks for the feedback, Gordon.

I can't find nroff(1) in my CURRENT machine:

[fernape@vm-current ~]$ find / -name nroff 2>/dev/null
uname -a
[fernape@vm-current ~]$ uname -a
FreeBSD vm-current 13.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 13.0-CURRENT #2 r364141: Wed Aug 12 14:46:01 CEST 2020     root@vm-current:/usr/obj/usr/src/amd64.amd64/sys/GENERIC  amd64
[fernape@vm-current ~]$ whereis nroff
nroff:
[fernape@vm-current ~]$

Hi again Gordon!

Having a look at /usr/bin/man I see the pipeline can be built to use either mandoc or a flavor of roff. The two possible flavors are:

NROFF='groff -S -P-h -Wall -mtty-char -man'
TROFF='groff -S -man'

So both of them are groff. But groff is not in base. In fact, there is this message in /usr/bin/man:

echo "This manpage needs groff(1) to be rendered" >&2
echo "First install groff(1): " >&2
echo "pkg install groff " >&2

It seems by default we are using mandoc which is in base:

pipeline="mandoc $mandoc_args | $MANPAGER"

Either way, it is weird that we reference nroff(1) in the SEE ALSO section but then we can not see the manual page:

[fernape@vm-current ~]$ man nroff
No manual entry for nroff
[fernape@vm-current ~]$ man 1 nroff
No manual entry for nroff
[fernape@vm-current ~]$

Thanks a lot for helping!

Thanks for detailed analysis. My nroff is located in /usr/local/bin so it was installed by some port.

@bcr would you also remove the BUGs section? nroff is still available by the ports collection.

@fernape if the Text of the BUG section should be removed, the .Sh element should also be deleted.

[bcr]

Yes, I would remove it. We're using mandoc and people can install as many things from ports as they like, but we can't reflect that in our man pages.

[fernape]

Address changes requested by gbe@

Remove BUGS section completely.

[gbe]

Thanks addressing my feedback!

[fernape]

Done in r366516

Thanks for reviewing this!