NetBSD Problem Report #49485

From www@NetBSD.org  Tue Dec 16 23:15:46 2014
Return-Path: <www@NetBSD.org>
Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [149.20.53.66])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "mail.netbsd.org", Issuer "Postmaster NetBSD.org" (verified OK))
	by mollari.NetBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A353A654C
	for <gnats-bugs@gnats.NetBSD.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 23:15:46 +0000 (UTC)
Message-Id: <20141216231545.79249A6554@mollari.NetBSD.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 23:15:45 +0000 (UTC)
From: pooka@iki.fi
Reply-To: pooka@iki.fi
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Subject: mandoc fails to fail if the word No appears unquoted in a reference
X-Send-Pr-Version: www-1.0

>Number:         49485
>Category:       bin
>Synopsis:       mandoc fails to fail if the word No appears unquoted in a reference
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    bin-bug-people
>State:          closed
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Tue Dec 16 23:20:00 +0000 2014
>Closed-Date:    Tue Dec 16 23:29:18 +0000 2014
>Last-Modified:  Wed Dec 17 09:45:01 +0000 2014
>Originator:     Antti Kantee
>Release:        
>Organization:
>Environment:
>Description:
mandoc fails to emulate troff by allowing unquoted macros on macro lines.

Also see bin/49481
>How-To-Repeat:
mandoc the following.  "this should not be displayed" gets rendered against all expectations of what is good and holy.

.Dd 1234
.Sh NAME
.Nm testpage
.Os
.Sh DESC
.Rs
.%A Dr. No
.%T this should not be displayed
.Re

>Fix:

>Release-Note:

>Audit-Trail:

State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: wiz@NetBSD.org
State-Changed-When: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 23:29:18 +0000
State-Changed-Why:
Thanks for the laugh!
(If you really care about the groff misbehaviour,
we can reopen that, but I don't expect it to be fixed
in NetBSD. It would be wiser to report it to groff upstream
instead.)


From: Antti Kantee <pooka@iki.fi>
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org, gnats-admin@netbsd.org, 
 netbsd-bugs@netbsd.org, wiz@NetBSD.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/49485 (mandoc fails to fail if the word No appears unquoted
 in a reference)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 23:39:12 +0000

 On 16/12/14 23:29, wiz@NetBSD.org wrote:
 > Synopsis: mandoc fails to fail if the word No appears unquoted in a reference
 >
 > State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
 > State-Changed-By: wiz@NetBSD.org
 > State-Changed-When: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 23:29:18 +0000
 > State-Changed-Why:
 > Thanks for the laugh!
 > (If you really care about the groff misbehaviour,
 > we can reopen that, but I don't expect it to be fixed
 > in NetBSD. It would be wiser to report it to groff upstream
 > instead.)

 I'm a bit confused when the same thing is described both as "Not a bug" 
 and "misbehaviour".

 The practical aspect I *am* interested in if it's mandated that manpages 
 should be tested to render properly with both mandoc and groff before 
 committing them.

From: Thomas Klausner <wiz@NetBSD.org>
To: NetBSD bugtracking <gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org>
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/49485 (mandoc fails to fail if the word No appears unquoted
 in a reference)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 08:22:14 +0100

 On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:39:12PM +0000, Antti Kantee wrote:
 > On 16/12/14 23:29, wiz@NetBSD.org wrote:
 > >Synopsis: mandoc fails to fail if the word No appears unquoted in a reference
 > >
 > >State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
 > >State-Changed-By: wiz@NetBSD.org
 > >State-Changed-When: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 23:29:18 +0000
 > >State-Changed-Why:
 > >Thanks for the laugh!
 > >(If you really care about the groff misbehaviour,
 > >we can reopen that, but I don't expect it to be fixed
 > >in NetBSD. It would be wiser to report it to groff upstream
 > >instead.)
 > 
 > I'm a bit confused when the same thing is described both as "Not a bug" and
 > "misbehaviour".

 As I see it:

 * Having to quote "No" on a macro line is not a bug.
 * That the rest of the man page is broken with groff is a bug.
 * That mandoc behaves better than groff is not a bug.

 The man pages in NetBSD are translated for viewing with mandoc, so the
 groff bug is not important in my eyes.

 > The practical aspect I *am* interested in if it's mandated that manpages
 > should be tested to render properly with both mandoc and groff before
 > committing them.

 IMO, for NetBSD, viewing with mandoc is enough.
  Thomas

From: Antti Kantee <pooka@iki.fi>
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org, gnats-admin@netbsd.org, 
 netbsd-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/49485 (mandoc fails to fail if the word No appears unquoted
 in a reference)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 09:27:00 +0000

 On 17/12/14 07:25, Thomas Klausner wrote:
 >   As I see it:
 >
 >   * Having to quote "No" on a macro line is not a bug.

 agreeable

 >   * That the rest of the man page is broken with groff is a bug.

 agreeable

 >   * That mandoc behaves better than groff is not a bug.

 ok, I can see it that way, even if the behaviour itself is not expected

 >   IMO, for NetBSD, viewing with mandoc is enough.

 ok

From: Steffen Nurpmeso <sdaoden@yandex.com>
To: gnats-admin@netbsd.org, gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org,
 netbsd-bugs@netbsd.org, wiz@NetBSD.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/49485 (mandoc fails to fail if the word No
 appears unquoted in a reference)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 10:41:58 +0100

 Antti Kantee <pooka@iki.fi> wrote:
  |On 16/12/14 23:29, wiz@NetBSD.org wrote:
  |> Synopsis: mandoc fails to fail if the word No appears unquoted \
  |> in a reference
  |>
  |> State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
  |> State-Changed-By: wiz@NetBSD.org
  |> State-Changed-When: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 23:29:18 +0000
  |> State-Changed-Why:
  |> Thanks for the laugh!
  |> (If you really care about the groff misbehaviour,
  |> we can reopen that, but I don't expect it to be fixed
  |> in NetBSD. It would be wiser to report it to groff upstream
  |> instead.)
  |
  |I'm a bit confused when the same thing is described both as "Not a bug"=
 =20
  |and "misbehaviour".
  |
  |The practical aspect I *am* interested in if it's mandated that manpages=
 =20
  |should be tested to render properly with both mandoc and groff before=20
  |committing them.

 It is cryptic and ugly, but it is definetely true that arguments
 of the % series are interpreted as normal macros (macros as of
 1.22.3), and thus need escaping -- simply enclose in quotation
 marks and everything should be fine.
 Thanks to Ingo's and Kristaps' roff.7 it is also clear how to
 write quotation marks: "Rules are ""complicated""".

 --steffen

>Unformatted:

Home	PR Database Search