Add links to full man pages

[hginzel]

Add links to full man pages if available, please.
This commit was generated by bash add_links.sh.
http://man7.org/

[mention-bot]

@hginzel, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @rubenvereecken, @lord63 and @oxguy3 to be potential reviewers.

[CLAassistant]

Thank you for your submission, we really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.

---

Hans Ginzel seems not to be a GitHub user. You need a GitHub account to be able to sign the CLA. If you have already a GitHub account, please add the email address used for this commit to your account.

[hginzel]

I have signed CLA. I am a GitHub user with correct name and e-mail in profile.

[agnivade]

Hi @hginzel, thanks for the PR. But I will have to deny this. Reasons being that we have a fixed markdown format which is consumed by all the clients. And adding a link in the main header breaks the formatting, as you can see from the failed travis test.

Also, I think if the users want to see the man pages, they can just do man <command> to get the page. It is unnecessary to open a link for that. And it also adds the requirement of having an internet connection.

And the files under the pages folder only contains markdown files following the format that we have. (You have added a bash script). Please take a look at CONTRIBUTING.md for that.

[waldyrious]

@hginzel at the moment we can't change way the pages are structured, as @agnivade said, because many clients depend on the current format. See #958 for an example of how such a change can be carried out, including the client's maintainers in the discussion.

What you're proposing is reasonable (not all commands we cover have manpages, so it could be interesting to make such a field more generic, e.g. "reference documentation", or "full help", so that we could mention how to get the full command help in those cases as well). In fact, such ideas have surfaced in the past; #1082 makes a summary of them. The fact that that issue is open means that we're indeed open to consider adding such additional fields, but they can't be done without community consensus. I'm sorry for the work you had preparing this PR, but at the moment we can't merge it.

My suggestion is to make a proposal similar to #958 (maybe after it is merged), including all the fields mentioned in #1082, and we can move forward from there.