<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 11 May 2015 at 13:49, D. Hugh Redelmeier <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hugh@mimosa.com" target="_blank">hugh@mimosa.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">| From: Paul Wouters <<a href="mailto:paul@nohats.ca">paul@nohats.ca</a>><br>
<span class=""><br>
| But since we don't export a shared library, we don't have a devel<br>
| package that would include the headers and developer man pages....<br>
<br>
</span>Right. Simplest solution that kind of works: build those manpages,<br>
but don't install them. Why build them? Because they are hard to<br>
read otherwise. This wasn't true in Henry's day (because we wrote<br>
directly in *roff).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>FYI, I've pushed the following:<br><br></div><div>- any existing library make file rules that build/install man page have been removed; i.e., library man pages no longer get installed<br><br></div><div>- some of library manpages that appear to have been generated from .xml source have also been removed; the process is fragile so I'm being slightly cautious<br><br></div><div>If a library man page needs to be build, then perhaps "make foo.8" will work (I'm claiming plausible deny-ability has testing would likely result in more work ... :-)<br><br></div><div>I also have to wonder if the knowledge contained in some of these man pages should be folded back into the source; and, to take this off topic, if even the libraries that only programs/pluto/ uses should be deemed failed experiments and moved back to programs/pluto :-)<br></div><br></div></div></div>