From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: bug#30785: Man pages truncated, repeated Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:22:03 +0100 Message-ID: <87bmfqyepw.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4a0d5e493db8af05dd2292b854ad7d3d@tobias.gr> <87woyfzmks.fsf@gnu.org> <238e425929fb44d3f8261a5f5b2945c0@tobias.gr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33915) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ew6Mz-0001iv-KA for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 09:23:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ew6Mw-00040M-FW for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 09:23:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:52631) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ew6Mw-0003yR-Bn for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 09:23:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ew6Mw-0003E7-2x for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 09:23:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <238e425929fb44d3f8261a5f5b2945c0@tobias.gr> (Tobias Geerinckx-Rice's message of "Tue, 13 Mar 2018 23:01:09 +0100") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Cc: 30785@debbugs.gnu.org Hi, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice skribis: > On 2018-03-13 22:34, ludo@gnu.org wrote: >>> However, even longer man pages such as bash(1) render without fail, so >>> there might be something special about the two examples above that >>> triggers this behaviour. >> >> I suspect something wrong with =E2=80=98knot.conf.5.gz=E2=80=99, but I d= on=E2=80=99t have >> tangible evidence. > > Yup, that's about as far as I got before giving up and submitting to > the wisdom of the crowd. We need someone who knows something =E2=80=94 > anything =E2=80=94 about man pages, or someone who can reproduce this on > another distro. I had no luck searching for similar bug reports. > > ...or do you mean with the knot.conf page *specifically*, as opposed > to the rofi one? Is your suspicion based on something you saw in > there? I didn=E2=80=99t check the rofi one. The knot.conf one is generated by some =E2=80=9Cdocutils=E2=80=9D, a reStructuredText thing, which is where my unf= ounded suspicion comes from. :-) We=E2=80=99d need to analyze the nroff =E2=80=9Ccode=E2=80=9D in there to u= nderstand what=E2=80=99s going on. > For the record: apparently this doesn't happen on Debian, according to > some fellow on IRC named =E2=80=98civodul=E2=80=99. There goes my brief h= ope that this > was an (exclusively) upstream problem after all. I think I know that person. ;-) Perhaps we could check how Debian generates the page. Do they have a patch for =E2=80=9Cdocutils=E2=80=9D? = Should we try with a different version to see if that helps? Cheers, Ludo=E2=80=99.