Re: Standards References

[Rical Jasan <ricaljasan at pacific dot net>]

On 10/25/2016 04:48 AM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 10/14/2016 05:33 AM, Rical Jasan wrote:
>>> To start fleshing out 1b below, would you want to use those names, or
>>> names from feature_test_macros(7), or both?  I think I would lean
>>> towards correlating the two, so rendered names might be more friendly
>>> like standards(7), but were connected to the names in
>>> feature_test_macros(7), allowing us to eventually say things like, "foo
>>> is standardized by Nicely Formatted Standard Name, and made available
>>> whenever _NFSN is defined.", or however we agree on the rendering.
>>
>> I would also lean towards correlating the two.
> 
> Yes, if we could have some consistency between the two projects, that
> would be great.

So how would you envision the two (projects) integrating?  Perhaps
naïvely, I would have gone for some kind of auxiliary data file in
manual/, or worse, some data structure like an associative array/hash
tucked away in a script there to provide the translation, at least to
get it off the ground.  Maybe even a bunch of macros in macros.texi, if
that seemed most maintainable.  I'm not familiar with how the man pages
project is maintained, so I have a hard time imagining what sort of
solution would best serve the two.

Maybe a new database?  /etc/stdftm  :)  I'm reading Carlos' response as
desiring a correlation between standards names and feature test macros
(in the glibc manual), and Michael's use of "projects" to mean something
common between the manual and manpages.  Maybe that's a little out of
scope, or maybe that's a worthwhile -- and achievable -- ideal.

Doing this from scratch in the glibc leaves the doors wide open for us,
but, Michael, what would work for you?

Rical