GNU bug report logs - #54745
Subject: 28.1; woman fails on "file"

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 54745 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#54745: Subject: 28.1; woman fails on "file"
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:47:04 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Am 06.04.22 um 13:14 schrieb Eli Zaretskii:
>> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 11:20:52 +0200
>> From: Andreas Röhler<andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de>
>>
>> M-x woman RET file RET
>>
>> errors saying:
>>
>> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (error "WoMan can only format man pages
>>    written with the usual ‘-man’ macros") signal(error ("WoMan can only
>>    format man pages written with the usual ‘-man’ macros"))
>>    error("WoMan can only format man pages written with the usual `-man'
>>    macros") woman-decode-region(1 21597) woman-decode-buffer()
>>    woman-process-buffer()
>>    woman-really-find-file("/usr/share/man/man1/file.1.gz" t "*WoMan 1
>>    file*<2>") woman-find-file("/usr/share/man/man1/file.1.gz")
>>
>> However from bash, manpage appears correctly.
>> Also would read nicely from:  "man file > file.txt"
> woman.el doesn't use the 'man' program.  It is implemented completely
> in Emacs Lisp.  So what 'man' does is not really relevant; what _is_
> relevant is that Someone(TM) should step up and volunteer to keep
> woman.el up-to-date with all the recent advances in roff markup.
> Until that happens, the error you see above is intentional, meant to
> alert you, the user, to the fact that the man page cannot be reliably
> formatted this way.


That workaround attached does it here.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

[woman.el.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.