bug#80258: man-pages bug report for "date(1) — Linux manual page"

To whom it may concern,

In nroff/troff man page source file /date.1//.gz/, the lines

.B date
[\fI\,OPTION\/\fR]... [_\fI\,+_FORMAT\/\fR]
.br
.B date
[_\fI\,-u|--utc|--universal\/\fR_] 
[\fI\,MMDDhhmm\/\fR[[\fI\,CC\/\fR]\fI\,YY\/\fR][_\fI\,._ss\/\fR]]

should be changed to

.B date
[\fI\,OPTION\/\fR]... [_\fB+\fI\,_FORMAT\/\fR]
.br
.B date
[_\fB\-u\fR|\fB\-\-utc\fR|\fB\-\-universal\fR_] 
[\fI\,MMDDhhmm\/\fR[[\fI\,CC\/\fR]\fI\,YY\/\fR][_\fB.\fI\,_ss\/\fR]]

This will have the effect of changing
*date* [/OPTION/]... [/+FORMAT/]
*date* [/-u|--utc|--universal/] [/MMDDhhmm/[[/CC/]/YY/][/.ss/]]
to
*date* [/OPTION/]... [*+*/FORMAT/]
*date* [*-u*|*--utc*|*--universal*] [/MMDDhhmm/[[/CC/]/YY/][*.*/ss/]]

-Michael

On 1/25/2026 9:50 AM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2026 at 09:02:05AM -0500, Michael Aramini wrote:
>> Alejandro, et al.,
>>
>> This is a /man-pages/ bug report for "date(1) — Linux manual page" (
>> https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/date.1.html ) pertaining to formatting
>> of the man page.
> The date(1) manual page is maintained by GNU coreutils; it's not part of
> the Linux man-pages project.  I've CCed them.
>
>> The line
>>
>>         *date *[/-u|--utc|--universal/] [/MMDDhhmm/[[/CC/]/YY/][/.ss/]]
>>
>> represented in HTML as
>>
>> <b>date </b>[<i>-u|--utc|--universal</i>]
>> [<i>MMDDhhmm</i>[[<i>CC</i>]<i>YY</i>][<i>.ss</i>]]
>>
>> should, following man page formatting style, be formatted
>>
>>         *date *[*-u*|*--utc*|*--universal*] [/MMDDhhmm/[[/CC/]/YY/][*.*/ss/]]
>>
>> represented in HTML as
>>
>> <b>date </b>[<b-u</b>|<b>--utc</b>|<b>--universal</b>]
>> [<i>MMDDhhmm</i>[[<i>CC</i>]<i>YY</i>][<b>.</b><i>ss</i>]]
>>
>> I.e. the "*-u*", "*--utc*", "*--universal*", and decimal point should be
>> (*non*-italic) *bold* as they are are not variables, but are potentially
>> verbatim text on the command line.  Also, the vertical bars are syntax
>> symbols, which are neither variables nor verbatim text, thus should be in
>> regular/roman typeface, *not* italic (nor bold).
> I agree with the bug report.
>
>
>> -Michael
> Have a lovely day!
> Alex
>