Hi Alex, On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 at 22:41, Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Use .nf/.fi in the SYNOPSIS. I'm not against the patch. But why this particular page? Thanks, Michael > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > > man2/execveat.2 | 11 ++++++----- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/man2/execveat.2 b/man2/execveat.2 > index 7c31d8f17..c5cd843f9 100644 > --- a/man2/execveat.2 > +++ b/man2/execveat.2 > @@ -27,13 +27,13 @@ > .SH NAME > execveat \- execute program relative to a directory file descriptor > .SH SYNOPSIS > +.nf > .B #include <unistd.h> > .PP > -.BI "int execveat(int " dirfd ", const char *" pathname "," > -.br > -.BI " char *const " argv "[], char *const " envp "[]," > -.br > +.BI "int execveat(int " dirfd ", const char *" pathname , > +.BI " char *const " argv "[], char *const " envp [], > .BI " int " flags ); > +.fi > .SH DESCRIPTION > .\" commit 51f39a1f0cea1cacf8c787f652f26dfee9611874 > The > @@ -224,7 +224,8 @@ where scripts recursively employ > .\" For an example, see Michael Kerrisk's 2015-01-10 reply in this LKML > .\" thread (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1836105/focus=20229): > .\" > -.\" Subject: [PATCHv10 man-pages 5/5] execveat.2: initial man page.\" for execveat(2 > +.\" Subject: [PATCHv10 man-pages 5/5] execveat.2: initial man page > +.\" for execveat(2) > .\" Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:53:59 +0000 > .SH SEE ALSO > .BR execve (2), > -- > 2.29.2 > -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
