[DRAFT] Our man page is currently unmaintained - do not install it#2820
[DRAFT] Our man page is currently unmaintained - do not install it#2820
Conversation
|
I could rewrite it. |
|
Parts of it are around 10 years out of date. 😁 |
|
I will rewrite this. Expect few days turnaround and i post it here for review. |
|
@Grounded0 We have already established that we don't need a man page, so let's just nuke it. It's wasted effort... |
|
@johnnovak I did some search, and I'm afraid we need a man page. See here: https://qa.debian.org/man-pages.html
I would prefer not to upset Debian devs - their distro forms a base for such popular ones like Ubuntu or Mint, and Linux has probably the highest percentage of tech-savy users (read: potential contributors) among the systems we support. So the effort of @Grounded0 definitely won't be wasted. The catch is we need a man page that isn't too hard to maintain. My proposals:
|
|
Yeah if you guys think it's important to have one for Linux and you're willing to maintain it going forward, who am I to say no 😄 What you wrote sounds like a reasonable compromise @FeralChild64 and @Grounded0. Just start with some bare essentials, then the user manual will have a much more detailed section on the CLI options anyway, at which point you can simply lift content from the manual into the man pages. But yeah, you can come up with something in the interim that fills the gaps. |
Just a tip: @weirddan455 and myself have normalised the CLI options and came up with better descriptions, so now two dashes is the standard for long form options, and single dash for the abbreviations. Single dashes are still accepted for the long options, but we should not really "advertise" that as that's for legacy compatibility only. Maybe just mention it somewhere at the end once and hopefully not too many people will find it 😄 |
|
Rewrote: man page file (nroff): You can view man page files at least with man program distributed with Linux like this:
|
|
Quick feedback @Grounded0. Got bored about 30% in, but better than nothing 😄 This would be better ("C drive"): Add comma: Remove it, it's a redundant sentence (we're in the OPTIONS section). All options in the OPTIONS section use single dashes; please use The options listed in SYNOPSIS and OPTIONS are not in sync. "tandy Tandy Graphics Adapter (Tandy 1000)" " svga_et3000 svga_et4000 These are all pre-VESA SVGA cards; none of them support VESA at all. Please remove 'VBE 2.0' from all of them. "The machinetype affects the video card and the available sound cards." Kinda/sorta, but it's murky. I'd remove this sentence. "Runs the specified command before running file." FILE (uppercase) "Each command should start with -c though." " -exit dosbox will close itself when the DOS program specified by file DOSBox |
|
I've marked the sections i've worked over with ✅ in the index. All other issues addressed. |
Sure. One more: If it is a dos executable, (.com .exe .bat) the program will run automatically. Should be; If it is a DOS executable (.COM, .EXE, or .BAT file extension), the program will run automatically. |
|
FeralChild64 Are those SPECIAL KEYS still the same on Linux? I can't check since i'm on macOS. |
|
kcgen already helped with Linux default keymap. INTERNAL COMMANDS left to do. |
|
@kcgen @johnnovak @FeralChild64 Ready for review. |
I would change it to something like: dosbox - DOSBox Staging, x86/DOS emulator, a modern continuation of DOSBox
mem and keyb commands should be omitted here, in my opinion
Isn’t it called dosbox-staging.com? I’m not at home at the moment, so I can’t check.
Don’t forget to add yourself :) |
It is: dosbox-staging.conf |
|
All issues addressed. |
|
If anyone else has no further objections feel free to merge it and close this ticket. |
|
Looks good @Grounded0, great job and it's not overdone 👍🏻 The period is missing from the end of the first sentence in the DESCRIPTION section. Btw, I'd drop this full justification attempt if I were you. It looks like crap with monospaced fonts 😄 Just left-justify.
|
|
Missing period added. Text formatting is nroff text-formatting language interpreted by man and universally like that. See man emacs for example. This Linux stuff needs to be tested by someone with Linux. |
|
Guess i have to learn more about badly documented text-formatting language developed at Bell Labs in 1970s than i ever wanted to. |
|
"By default, nroff and troff both fill and justify text. Justification implies filling, but it is possible to have filling without justification.": https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/unix-text-processing/9780810462915/Chapter04.html Diverging from this will significantly increase document maintenance burden in the future. Reason why larger man pages like GNU Emacs use defaults is to reduce document maintenance burden. It will significantly increase the amount of markup to hack this together which i will not do. If someone wants to do this they can do it on their own volition. Historically this document was fill and justify. |
Thanks for these references @Grounded0, and agree to follow this pathway (very similar to PR's using the code-formatter for source). It might not always be to our personal tastes, but it's standardized, and that brings predictability for readers across all the |
|
If anyone else has no further objections feel free to merge it and close this ticket. |
|
Merging. |
|
All issues addressed. man page file (nroff): You can view man page files at least with man program distributed with Linux like this:
|
|
Closed by: |


Related to discussion in #2574
Since no one wants to maintain the man page, we shouldn't provide it - outdated documentation causes too much confusion.
I didn't delete the file completely (just moved to outdated subdirectory), as maybe it will be worth to bring it back at some point - but definitely in a revised form (maybe autogenerated from other documentation?), the current one contains too much detailed information instead of pointing the user to the
introcommand or the online documentation.[edit] Changed back to draft, as @Grounded0 volunteered to have a look into the man page :)