Hi all,

I would like to know if there is a utility to convert a man page file to a Libre Office .odt or .doc file and then back again?

I'm working on adding a lot of features and functions to an existing package and of course wish to update it's man page accordingly.

So, here's what I'm hoping to do:

(1) Convert the man page file to an .odt or .doc file.
(2) Open it with Libre Office Writer and edit it.
(3) Convert the edited .odt or .doc file back to a man page file.

NOTE that I need to preserve the existing formatting, since the man page utilizes bold and underline.

BTW, my system is Debian 8, x86_64 if that makes any difference.

Thanks!

Take a look at http://docbook.org for a glimpse "behind the scenes" at the technology that is used at the source of many forms of documentation – including man-pages. There is a root-source document from which man-page content is generated, and this same technology can generate other forms of output.

For instance, all of those O'Reilly Books that we used to pore over, were all written in DocBook, and all of the derivative publications that they produced came from the same sources.

So, you wouldn't take the man-page-formatted output: you'd go back to its XML source, and produce your other output from it.

Welcome to the wonderous world of "XSLT."

Formatting or structure? The data format for man pages contains a heck of a lot of structural information that you would 100% lose if you were to just look at the layout and presentation.

Anyway, I digress. Your approach will not work to get to your stated goal of building out an existing man page. The only way to do that is to use the format they use. See the macros documentation for that:

It's not difficult and it is precise.

Over in OpenBSD, there have been a lot of refinements in regards to manuals:

http://mandoc.bsd.lv/

I think some of the other BSDs have also adopted these improvements. Hopefully, they will eventually wend their way over to GNU/Linux.

I was really looking for a utility where my lazy self could just do something like this:

$utility < manpage.1 > manpage.doc

And, by the way, my source file isn't in XML format, it looks like this (a small snippet of course):

.IP "\fBdefdbl\fP \fIvariable\fP[\fB\-\fP\fIvariable\fP]" "{{{
Declare the global \fIvariable\fP as real. Only unqualified variables (no
type extension) can be declared. Variable ranges can only be built from
single letter variables. Declaration is done at compile time.
."}}}
.IP "\fBdefint\fP \fIvariable\fP[\fB\-\fP\fIvariable\fP]" "{{{
Declare the global \fIvariable\fP as integer.
."}}}
.IP "\fBdefstr\fP \fIvariable\fP[\fB\-\fP\fIvariable\fP]" "{{{
Declare the global \fIvariable\fP as string.
."}}}

...which (after conversion) in the document editor would look like this:

defdbl variable[-variable]
Declare the global variable as real. Only unqualified variables (no type extension) can be declared. Variable ranges can only be built from single letter variables. Declaration is done at compile time.

defint variable[-variable]
Declare the global variable as integer.

defstr variable[-variable]
Declare the global variable as string.


...and when converted back to a .man file would display the same way (aside from breaking to fit the current screen width).

Am I making any sense here?

No. Sorry. Typographic markup is about the best that word processors can do. There can be some structural markup at the block level (headings, paragraphs, etc.) but that is not enough.

I reiterate my suggestion to look at the original format:

It will save you time and effort.

It's all about using the right tool for the job.

I find that difficult to believe. If I had to do this more than once, I could easily write a console mode (CLI) utility to convert the "/fB" to bold and "/fI" stuff to bold and underline then generate a .doc file.

I also can't imagine that in 2017 people still use awkward cryptic coding to make a man page.

It SHOULD be as easy as firing up a word processor, writing the text (complete with formatting) and then "save as man page".

Or, fire up the word processor, LOAD the man page file and have it auto-converted to standard "document" format, which could be edited then saved back as a man page.

Seriously.... too much to expect?

Yes. Unfortunately. The information theory behind it does not allow for it. See the difference between typographic markup and structural markup. You'd have to add a whole new level of complexity to your text editor. Levels that have only previously had in full-blown XML or SGML editors. That level of detail takes a lot of effort to work with. I've done that at large scales in the past back when SGML was all the rage.

You and I could probably have a lazy-contest, but it'd be too much effort. I've made small changes to lots of manual pages. I found it far easier to work with the macros than previous work with XML or SGML. My approach has been to just fire up a text editor and use the macros. Compared to the high-powered electronic publishing methods, it's worlds easier.

Wow. I'm actually amazed. It LOOKS like it should be simple to do.... I guess I'm missing something important.

Just putting bold or italics here and there would be simple, but there is much more actually going on under the hood. I think the current buzzword might be "semantic markup" rather than "structural markup". If you look up the former, you might find some relevant material.

heres my attempt:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...es-4175591129/