Re: bpf-helpers.7: .TH line is... meh (was: [PATCH] bpf_doc.py: Use SPDX-License-Identifier)

[Alejandro Colomar]

Hi Branden,

On 8/2/22 12:28, Quentin Monnet wrote:
> On 01/08/2022 23:13, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > I've been running a linter on the man-pages, and had this triggered from
> > bpf-helpers.7:
> >
> > [
> > $ make lint V=1
> > LINT (groff)    tmp/lint/man7/bpf-helpers.7.lint-man.groff.touch
> > groff -man -t -M ./etc/groff/tmac -m checkstyle -rCHECKSTYLE=3 -ww  -z
> > man7/bpf-helpers.7
> > an.tmac:man7/bpf-helpers.7:3: style: .TH missing third argument; suggest
> > document modification date in ISO 8601 format (YYYY-MM-DD)
> > an.tmac:man7/bpf-helpers.7:3: style: .TH missing fourth argument;
> > suggest package/project name and version (e.g., "groff 1.23.0")
> > an.tmac:man7/bpf-helpers.7:3: style: .TH missing fifth argument and
> > second argument '7' not a recognized manual section; specify volume title
> > found style problems; aborting
>
> Not sure I understand this last one. Isn't "7" a valid man section?
>
> > make: *** [lib/lint-man.mk:49:
> > tmp/lint/man7/bpf-helpers.7.lint-man.groff.touch] Error 1
> >
> > ]
> >
> > See what a normal .TH line looks like, and what bpf-helpers.7 has:
> >
> > [
> > $ grep ^.TH man2/bpf.2
> > .TH BPF 2 2021-08-27 "Linux" "Linux Programmer's Manual"
> > $ grep ^.TH man7/bpf-helpers.7
> > .TH BPF-HELPERS 7 "" "" ""
> > ]

That seems like a non-legitimate warning.  May it be a bug in groff(1)? 
It also may be that due to the many other issues, groff(1) already went 
(legitimately) crazy, but I'm reporting it in case there's a small bug 
somewhere.

Cheers,

Alex

--
Alejandro Colomar
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature