Use of the the '.B' and '.BI' man documentation macros
had rendered the three library API pages less readable
than they could be. In addition, sometimes the pointer
indicator and an identifier were separated by a space.
So, this commit will trade those macros for some '.RI'
and '.RB' macros plus treat the pointers consistently.
[ plus we no longer italicize sort 'stacks' brackets ]
Signed-off-by: Jim Warner <james.warner@comcast.net>
. add the proper function names to the procps_pids man
page when discussing the 'LIBPROC_HIDE_KERNEL' feature
under recently added 'ENVIRONMENT VARIABLE(S)' section
. ensure the 'SEE ALSO' references are comma delimited
Signed-off-by: Jim Warner <james.warner@comcast.net>
[ you wouldn't believe how many back-and-forths were ]
[ involved in Craig convincing me there were several ]
[ inconsistencies. i am so dense sometimes (often?). ]
Signed-off-by: Jim Warner <james.warner@comcast.net>
This just updates the copyright dates in the documents
where I was already represented. Others are unchanged.
Signed-off-by: Jim Warner <james.warner@comcast.net>
What to call the new library?
Keep using libprocps wouldn't do, its a very different library from
the programs' point of view. It would also mean we could have some
clashes around the packages (two package names, same library name).
The ancient procps used libproc or libproc-a.b.c where a.b.c was the
package version. Kept the revision numbers down (it was always 0.0.0)
but the name of the library changed.
So if we use libproc-2 is there a clash with an ancient procps?
procps v 2.0.0 was around in 1999 so it was 22 years ago, also the
name of the library would have been libproc-2.0.0.so not libproc-2.so
so we're fine with that.
libproc-2 seems to fit, our second major re-work of the procps
library.
Signed-off-by: Craig Small <csmall@dropbear.xyz>
Maybe, the biggest obstacle to successfully exploiting
this new library is after those `stacks' are returned.
Unless a user requests all available `items', there is
always a need to translate an actual enumerator into a
relative position within returned stack(s) of results.
So, this patch attempts to bridge that gap by adding a
brief explanation to the existing discussion in Usage.
[ along the way, 'Usage' & 'Caveats' were refactored ]
Signed-off-by: Jim Warner <james.warner@comcast.net>
An important fact was omitted in the DEBUGGING section
for the two newest man documents. Users must utilize a
macro in the header files before verification happens.
So, this commit will sneak in such mention and in that
way reduce future liability if the feature won't work.
Signed-off-by: Jim Warner <james.warner@comcast.net>
This represents the 'second cut' at providing a shared
man page that supports more than one newlib interface.
In this approach, the following assumptions were made:
1) It is the kernel folks' job to document /proc files
not to mention fields within those files. And since we
don't yet know what some of those fields represent, we
shouldn't attempt to document any of those we do know.
2) Our header files serve as an essential reference in
successful exploitation of the new library interfaces.
3) The description represents functions as they appear
in the header itself making them immediately familiar.
4) Some inconsistencies among the interfaces have been
handled more visually rather than in a narrative form.
5) Armed with our header file users can easily see the
self-documenting enumerators & structures. There isn't
a need to explain them yet again in this man document.
6) Contrary to man guidelines, we shouldn't list error
codes. Simple generic guidance serves everyone better.
Reference(s):
. 05/19/20, procps.3 man page introduced
commit fc69028d37
Signed-off-by: Jim Warner <james.warner@comcast.net>
