Re: man/man8/ldconfig.8: document system-wide tunables

["G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1629 bytes --]

[self-follow-up]

At 2026-07-13T17:22:37-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2026-07-13T17:33:05-0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> writes:
> > > You should indent this compared to the surrounding text:
> > >
> > > 	.IP
> > > 	.in +4n
> > 
> > Isn't that what the .IP does ?
> 
> There were difficulties, some imposed by the previous Linux man-pages
> maintainer, Michael Kerrisk.

I worded that sentence like crap, and threw shade on Michael when I
didn't mean to.  There was a very pretty _constraint problem_ that
Michael posed to me--one I was unable to solve.  Sorry, Michael!

I sympathize with the problem, and don't often endorse "punching through
the floor" to employ "raw" *roff requests in a man(7) document, but this
was an exception.  The Linux man-pages corpus is huge; Michael then and
Alex now have a large management challenge, so it's reasonable to
facilitate shuffling EX/EE examples from place to place in that corpus
with simple copy-and-paste operations.

> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/a79fc055-c7ab-1793-04eb-eb4f678e5035@gmail.com/

That link remains a good précis of the problem.  One could show up my
man(7) composition abilities and earn my gratitude by solving that
constraint problem using only macros from the package.  :)

Alternatively, if I think of a backward-compatible extension I can add
to groff man(7) that would eliminate the need for these `in` requests,
I'd likely implement it.  I welcome design suggestions!

I should not send mails after a 12-hour session preparing a release
candidate...

Regards,
Branden

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]