Thread: [Bashburn-info] man page
Brought to you by:
bashburn
Menu
▾
▴
bashburn-info
|
From: Steven W. O. <st...@sy...> - 2008-10-05 02:03:01
|
I moved bashburn.1.gz to bashburn.1 I also did a bit of hacking in the manpage structure. I'm not great at the macro usage but I did fix a few things. Let me know if you see any problems. -- Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have .0. happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ ..0 Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- 000 individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question? steveo at syslang.net |
|
From: Nick W. <ni...@uk...> - 2008-10-05 10:00:35
|
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 21:53:46 -0400 (EDT) "Steven W. Orr" <st...@sy...> wrote: > I moved bashburn.1.gz to bashburn.1 > > I also did a bit of hacking in the manpage structure. I'm not great > at the macro usage but I did fix a few things. Let me know if you see > any problems. Steve, you should have said. I have a man page template, and the bashburn man page gets created from that using sed wizardry - that way it is easy to change anything. http://anaturb.net/create_man_p.htm Nick -- Free Software Foundation Associate Member 5508 |
|
From: Nick W. <ni...@uk...> - 2008-10-05 16:12:43
|
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 10:49:34 -0400 (EDT) "Steven W. Orr" <st...@sy...> wrote: > On Sunday, Oct 5th 2008 at 05:56 -0000, quoth Nick Warne: > > =>On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 21:53:46 -0400 (EDT) > =>"Steven W. Orr" <st...@sy...> wrote: > => > =>> I moved bashburn.1.gz to bashburn.1 > =>> > =>> I also did a bit of hacking in the manpage structure. I'm not > great =>> at the macro usage but I did fix a few things. Let me know > if you see =>> any problems. > => > =>Steve, you should have said. I have a man page template, and the > =>bashburn man page gets created from that using sed wizardry - that > way =>it is easy to change anything. > => > =>http://anaturb.net/create_man_p.htm > > Sorry, I don't understand. Is there a template somewhere? Yes, I have a bashburn template directory, so I edit the template and then create the man page. I was wondering where it should go, as it should NOT be in the release files, so I guess it could live in trunk only just for man page edits, and just the man page itself gets moved over to release. Let me do some documentation and upload it anyway. Nick -- Free Software Foundation Associate Member 5508 |
|
From: Steven W. O. <st...@sy...> - 2008-10-05 22:20:29
|
On Sunday, Oct 5th 2008 at 12:10 -0000, quoth Nick Warne: =>On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 10:49:34 -0400 (EDT) =>"Steven W. Orr" <st...@sy...> wrote: => =>> On Sunday, Oct 5th 2008 at 05:56 -0000, quoth Nick Warne: =>> =>> =>On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 21:53:46 -0400 (EDT) =>> =>"Steven W. Orr" <st...@sy...> wrote: =>> => =>> =>> I moved bashburn.1.gz to bashburn.1 =>> =>> =>> =>> I also did a bit of hacking in the manpage structure. I'm not =>> great =>> at the macro usage but I did fix a few things. Let me know =>> if you see =>> any problems. =>> => =>> =>Steve, you should have said. I have a man page template, and the =>> =>bashburn man page gets created from that using sed wizardry - that =>> way =>it is easy to change anything. =>> => =>> =>http://anaturb.net/create_man_p.htm =>> =>> Sorry, I don't understand. Is there a template somewhere? => =>Yes, I have a bashburn template directory, so I edit the template and =>then create the man page. => =>I was wondering where it should go, as it should NOT be in the release =>files, so I guess it could live in trunk only just for man page edits, =>and just the man page itself gets moved over to release. => =>Let me do some documentation and upload it anyway. Now I see the problem. The content and shape of the src repository has nothing at all to do with the content and shape of the released code. So.... If you have a script, or a body of software that should be executed in order to generate a man page, then the man page itself should not be checked into the repository at all. IOW, the file bashburn.1 (.gz or otherwise) is not a file that was *written* by a person. It's a file that was generated. (If you ever worked in the ClearCase world, we would call such things "derived objects".) You have some file which right now is sitting in Merry Old England and that was used as input to something which resulted in bashburn.1 . If you got hit by a bus then we'd be sitting on the .1 file, which probably isn't a huge loss (the file, not you), but we'd have no way to start from what you started from. >From there, look at the Install.sh file after I modified it. There's no reason for the man page to be treated the same as every other file. We can write exceptions, lots and lots of them if we want to. So what you should do is to check in the real src code and the script(s) you run to create the output man page. Make sense? -- Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have .0. happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ ..0 Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- 000 individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question? steveo at syslang.net |
|
From: Nick W. <ni...@uk...> - 2008-10-06 08:00:33
|
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 18:20:14 -0400 (EDT) "Steven W. Orr" <st...@sy...> wrote: > On Sunday, Oct 5th 2008 at 12:10 -0000, quoth Nick Warne: > > =>On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 10:49:34 -0400 (EDT) > =>"Steven W. Orr" <st...@sy...> wrote: > => > =>> On Sunday, Oct 5th 2008 at 05:56 -0000, quoth Nick Warne: > =>> > =>> =>On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 21:53:46 -0400 (EDT) > =>> =>"Steven W. Orr" <st...@sy...> wrote: > =>> => > =>> =>> I moved bashburn.1.gz to bashburn.1 > =>> =>> > =>> =>> I also did a bit of hacking in the manpage structure. I'm not > =>> great =>> at the macro usage but I did fix a few things. Let me > know =>> if you see =>> any problems. > =>> => > =>> =>Steve, you should have said. I have a man page template, and > the =>> =>bashburn man page gets created from that using sed wizardry > - that =>> way =>it is easy to change anything. > =>> => > =>> =>http://anaturb.net/create_man_p.htm > =>> > =>> Sorry, I don't understand. Is there a template somewhere? > => > =>Yes, I have a bashburn template directory, so I edit the template > and =>then create the man page. > => > =>I was wondering where it should go, as it should NOT be in the > release =>files, so I guess it could live in trunk only just for man > page edits, =>and just the man page itself gets moved over to release. > => > =>Let me do some documentation and upload it anyway. > > Now I see the problem. The content and shape of the src repository > has nothing at all to do with the content and shape of the released > code. > > So.... If you have a script, or a body of software that should be > executed in order to generate a man page, then the man page itself > should not be checked into the repository at all. IOW, the file > bashburn.1 (.gz or otherwise) is not a file that was *written* by a > person. It's a file that was generated. (If you ever worked in the > ClearCase world, we would call such things "derived objects".) You > have some file which right now is sitting in Merry Old England and > that was used as input to something which resulted in bashburn.1 . If > you got hit by a bus then we'd be sitting on the .1 file, which > probably isn't a huge loss (the file, not you), but we'd have no way > to start from what you started from. > > >From there, look at the Install.sh file after I modified it. There's > >no > reason for the man page to be treated the same as every other file. > We can write exceptions, lots and lots of them if we want to. > > So what you should do is to check in the real src code and the > script(s) you run to create the output man page. Make sense? > OK, I moved the whole lot up - have a look and see what y'all think. Steve: I tweaked the man page a little more from what you done. Nick -- Free Software Foundation Associate Member 5508 |
|
From: Steven W. O. <st...@sy...> - 2008-10-06 18:29:41
|
On Monday, Oct 6th 2008 at 04:00 -0000, quoth Nick Warne: =>On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 18:20:14 -0400 (EDT) =>"Steven W. Orr" <st...@sy...> wrote: => =>> On Sunday, Oct 5th 2008 at 12:10 -0000, quoth Nick Warne: =>> =>> =>On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 10:49:34 -0400 (EDT) =>> =>"Steven W. Orr" <st...@sy...> wrote: =>> => =>> =>> On Sunday, Oct 5th 2008 at 05:56 -0000, quoth Nick Warne: =>> =>> =>> =>> =>On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 21:53:46 -0400 (EDT) =>> =>> =>"Steven W. Orr" <st...@sy...> wrote: =>> =>> => =>> =>> =>> I moved bashburn.1.gz to bashburn.1 =>> =>> =>> =>> =>> =>> I also did a bit of hacking in the manpage structure. I'm not =>> =>> great =>> at the macro usage but I did fix a few things. Let me =>> know =>> if you see =>> any problems. =>> =>> => =>> =>> =>Steve, you should have said. I have a man page template, and =>> the =>> =>bashburn man page gets created from that using sed wizardry =>> - that =>> way =>it is easy to change anything. =>> =>> => =>> =>> =>http://anaturb.net/create_man_p.htm =>> =>> =>> =>> Sorry, I don't understand. Is there a template somewhere? =>> => =>> =>Yes, I have a bashburn template directory, so I edit the template =>> and =>then create the man page. =>> => =>> =>I was wondering where it should go, as it should NOT be in the =>> release =>files, so I guess it could live in trunk only just for man =>> page edits, =>and just the man page itself gets moved over to release. =>> => =>> =>Let me do some documentation and upload it anyway. =>> =>> Now I see the problem. The content and shape of the src repository =>> has nothing at all to do with the content and shape of the released =>> code. =>> =>> So.... If you have a script, or a body of software that should be =>> executed in order to generate a man page, then the man page itself =>> should not be checked into the repository at all. IOW, the file =>> bashburn.1 (.gz or otherwise) is not a file that was *written* by a =>> person. It's a file that was generated. (If you ever worked in the =>> ClearCase world, we would call such things "derived objects".) You =>> have some file which right now is sitting in Merry Old England and =>> that was used as input to something which resulted in bashburn.1 . If =>> you got hit by a bus then we'd be sitting on the .1 file, which =>> probably isn't a huge loss (the file, not you), but we'd have no way =>> to start from what you started from. =>> =>> >From there, look at the Install.sh file after I modified it. There's =>> >no =>> reason for the man page to be treated the same as every other file. =>> We can write exceptions, lots and lots of them if we want to. =>> =>> So what you should do is to check in the real src code and the =>> script(s) you run to create the output man page. Make sense? =>> => =>OK, I moved the whole lot up - have a look and see what y'all think. => =>Steve: I tweaked the man page a little more from what you done. I just created a Makefile which when run will create bashburn.1 as output. The makefile has a bashburn.1 and a clean as a target. The Install.sh will automatically run the makefile to get the most uptodate bashburn.1. The file bashburn.man is deleted. There are two additional targets in the Makefile: bashburn.man and bashburn.ps (Note that they use the -pte options to groff.) You can look at the bashburn.ps with some PostScript viewer like evince or gv. It's publication quality. The .man file is just plain text. There's a lot more to go to make the man page technically correct. I'm not *sold* on the idea of the bashburn.sed file as being less work to learn than learning man 7 groff_man but let's go with it for the time being. Anders, I don't know what that thingy is in your name between the d and the r but it makes groff slightly upset. Maybe you should change your name ;-) Also, I deleted the .man file and the .1 file from the docs dir since they are now files that are made. Look good? -- Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have .0. happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ ..0 Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- 000 individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question? steveo at syslang.net |
|
From: Nick W. <ni...@uk...> - 2008-10-06 19:13:09
|
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 14:25:13 -0400 (EDT) "Steven W. Orr" <st...@sy...> wrote: > On Monday, Oct 6th 2008 at 04:00 -0000, quoth Nick Warne: > > =>On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 18:20:14 -0400 (EDT) > =>"Steven W. Orr" <st...@sy...> wrote: > => > =>> On Sunday, Oct 5th 2008 at 12:10 -0000, quoth Nick Warne: > =>> > =>> =>On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 10:49:34 -0400 (EDT) > =>> =>"Steven W. Orr" <st...@sy...> wrote: > =>> => > =>> =>> On Sunday, Oct 5th 2008 at 05:56 -0000, quoth Nick Warne: > =>> =>> > =>> =>> =>On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 21:53:46 -0400 (EDT) > =>> =>> =>"Steven W. Orr" <st...@sy...> wrote: > =>> =>> => > =>> =>> =>> I moved bashburn.1.gz to bashburn.1 > =>> =>> =>> > =>> =>> =>> I also did a bit of hacking in the manpage structure. I'm > not =>> =>> great =>> at the macro usage but I did fix a few things. > Let me =>> know =>> if you see =>> any problems. > =>> =>> => > =>> =>> =>Steve, you should have said. I have a man page template, > and =>> the =>> =>bashburn man page gets created from that using sed > wizardry =>> - that =>> way =>it is easy to change anything. > =>> =>> => > =>> =>> =>http://anaturb.net/create_man_p.htm > =>> =>> > =>> =>> Sorry, I don't understand. Is there a template somewhere? > =>> => > =>> =>Yes, I have a bashburn template directory, so I edit the > template =>> and =>then create the man page. > =>> => > =>> =>I was wondering where it should go, as it should NOT be in the > =>> release =>files, so I guess it could live in trunk only just for > man =>> page edits, =>and just the man page itself gets moved over to > release. =>> => > =>> =>Let me do some documentation and upload it anyway. > =>> > =>> Now I see the problem. The content and shape of the src repository > =>> has nothing at all to do with the content and shape of the > released =>> code. > =>> > =>> So.... If you have a script, or a body of software that should be > =>> executed in order to generate a man page, then the man page itself > =>> should not be checked into the repository at all. IOW, the file > =>> bashburn.1 (.gz or otherwise) is not a file that was *written* by > a =>> person. It's a file that was generated. (If you ever worked in > the =>> ClearCase world, we would call such things "derived > objects".) You =>> have some file which right now is sitting in Merry > Old England and =>> that was used as input to something which > resulted in bashburn.1 . If =>> you got hit by a bus then we'd be > sitting on the .1 file, which =>> probably isn't a huge loss (the > file, not you), but we'd have no way =>> to start from what you > started from. =>> > =>> >From there, look at the Install.sh file after I modified it. > There's =>> >no > =>> reason for the man page to be treated the same as every other > file. =>> We can write exceptions, lots and lots of them if we want > to. =>> > =>> So what you should do is to check in the real src code and the > =>> script(s) you run to create the output man page. Make sense? > =>> > => > =>OK, I moved the whole lot up - have a look and see what y'all think. > => > =>Steve: I tweaked the man page a little more from what you done. > > I just created a Makefile which when run will create bashburn.1 as > output. The makefile has a bashburn.1 and a clean as a target. The > Install.sh will automatically run the makefile to get the most > uptodate bashburn.1. The file bashburn.man is deleted. There are two > additional targets in the Makefile: bashburn.man and bashburn.ps > (Note that they use the -pte options to groff.) > > You can look at the bashburn.ps with some PostScript viewer like > evince or gv. It's publication quality. The .man file is just plain > text. There's a lot more to go to make the man page technically > correct. I'm not *sold* on the idea of the bashburn.sed file as being > less work to learn than learning > > man 7 groff_man > > but let's go with it for the time being. > Also, I deleted the .man file and the .1 file from the docs dir since > they are now files that are made. > > Look good? > Steve, Great job. Please also update BUILD_README file to to reflect changes. This is very good. Nick -- Free Software Foundation Associate Member 5508 |
|
From: Nick W. <ni...@uk...> - 2008-10-06 21:00:52
|
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 14:25:13 -0400 (EDT) "Steven W. Orr" <st...@sy...> wrote: > You can look at the bashburn.ps with some PostScript viewer like > evince or gv. It's publication quality. 'gv' That is cool. Learn something everyday with GNU/Linux. Great job Steve. Nick -- Free Software Foundation Associate Member 5508 |
|
From: Nick W. <ni...@uk...> - 2008-10-06 19:04:05
|
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 14:25:13 -0400 (EDT) "Steven W. Orr" <st...@sy...> wrote: > Anders, I don't know what that thingy is in your name between the d > and the r but it makes groff slightly upset. Maybe you should change > your name ;-) That is an é (I bet Steve can't see that :-D ) Lowercase E with acute (U+00E9) I guess us Europeans ought to drag you Yanks to the real Internet ;-) As an aside, try pronouncing it. I can after 10 Swedish beers. Nick -- Free Software Foundation Associate Member 5508 |
|
From: Anders L. <and...@gm...> - 2008-10-06 23:02:34
|
On Monday 06 October 2008 21:03:02 Nick Warne wrote: > On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 14:25:13 -0400 (EDT) > > "Steven W. Orr" <st...@sy...> wrote: > > Anders, I don't know what that thingy is in your name between the d > > and the r but it makes groff slightly upset. Maybe you should change > > your name ;-) > > That is an é (I bet Steve can't see that :-D ) > > Lowercase E with acute (U+00E9) > > I guess us Europeans ought to drag you Yanks to the real Internet ;-) > > As an aside, try pronouncing it. I can after 10 Swedish beers. > > Nick To be honest, Swedish beer sucks. We know how to make safe cars but we have a long way to go until we brew a decent beer. -- Anders Lindén http://bashburn.dose.se |
|
From: Anders L. <and...@gm...> - 2008-10-06 23:09:13
|
On Monday 06 October 2008 20:25:13 Steven W. Orr wrote: > Anders, I don't know what that thingy is in your name between the d and > the r but it makes groff slightly upset. Maybe you should change your name > ;-) > I'll get right on that, is BashBurn McSwede better? :-) |
|
From: Steven W. O. <st...@sy...> - 2008-10-07 03:11:40
|
On Monday, Oct 6th 2008 at 17:47 -0000, quoth Anders Lind?n:
=>On Monday 06 October 2008 20:25:13 Steven W. Orr wrote:
=>> Anders, I don't know what that thingy is in your name between the d
=>and
=>> the r but it makes groff slightly upset. Maybe you should change your
=>name
=>> ;-)
=>>
=>I'll get right on that, is BashBurn McSwede better? :-)
Lemme see:
name='BashBurn McSwede'
for (( ii=0; ii<${#name}; ii++ ))
do
[[ $${name:ii:1} =~ '[a-zA-Z ]' ]] || echo "bad letter: $letter"
done
Yup. That's a good one. I'm not too picky (;-)>
--
Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have .0.
happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ ..0
Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- 000
individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question?
steveo at syslang.net
|
|
From: Anders L. <and...@gm...> - 2008-10-06 23:23:28
|
On Sunday 05 October 2008 03:53:46 Steven W. Orr wrote: > I moved bashburn.1.gz to bashburn.1 > > I also did a bit of hacking in the manpage structure. I'm not great at the > macro usage but I did fix a few things. Let me know if you see any > problems. Man page looks sweet. Nice work everyone. Oh, and if you want to be added to the contact page on the web page let me know. I didn't want to add anyone without consent and be responsible for a crap ton of spam. -- Anders Lindén http://bashburn.dose.se |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X