On 12/30/20 11:27 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > 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? Hello Michael, I fixed this while adding the notes about missing headers in that page, but I felt that it was better as a separate patch. And the other patch I didn't send it in the last moment as I found a missing line :p Would you prefer a global fix about .nf/.fi or just fix as we go? Cheers, Alex > > 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 >> > >
