Re: Bug#450432: ... and even more bugs like this?
>>>>> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov <ivan@theory.asu.ru> writes:
>>>>> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
>>> or with the period escaped.
>> ... And this is the thing I haven't found how to do. Could you
>> please show me that spell?
> \&. Note:
> \& is a null token that can be put at the beginning of a line to
> ensure that it's not interpreted as a roff command. .BR is better,
> in my opinion, since this introduces an extraneous space before the
> period.
ACK. Thanks for that.
> Another approach that also works is to stop using .B entirely and
> instead use font escapes:
> \fBifconfig eth0:0 down\fP.
> This is what Pod::Man does since constructing the .BR lines is
> complex and can run into short arbitrary limits in some roff
> implementations.
Well, looks like so, but I see a problem with the legacy
manpages that ``miss their parts.''
>> Isn't .\" the better way to go then?
> Yes, but you never can tell what people do.
A lintian check. To remind of a bad practice.
>> Since this issue could be checked with lintian, I think that sending
>> a wishlist report on it is a better way. IIUC, once the check is in
>> lintian, the bugs like this would be filed automatically?
> No, lintian doesn't file bugs. Someone still has to go file the
> bugs, even if lintian is used to do the check.
Lintian documentation reads:
--cut: /usr/share/doc/lintian/lintian.html/ch1.html--
3. Please DO NOT use Lintian to file bug reports (neither single ones
nor mass bug reports). This is done by the authors of Lintian
already and duplication of efforts and bug reports should be
avoided!
--cut: /usr/share/doc/lintian/lintian.html/ch1.html--
Is this bit out of date?
> This is a minor bug, not a wishlist bug, IMO. Unless you meant the
> bug on lintian.
Yes, I've meant the latter.
> (If you meant the bug against lintian, including a patch to do this
> check would be lovely.)
I'll start working on it soon.
Reply to: