Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 21:17:01 +0200 From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@britannica.bec.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GSoC: BSD text tools Message-ID: <20100524191701.GA29256@britannica.bec.de> In-Reply-To: <20100524191307.GE216@comcast.net> References: <AANLkTik90k1HlsDJsIgRhCnAcU8_ympR15ZJcoL07A5m@mail.gmail.com> <20100524191307.GE216@comcast.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:13:07PM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote: > I welcome this change, but groff is used for much more than manpages. > What happens to pic, tbl, and the other troff-related "little > languages"? How can you say mdocml is "completely replacing" groff if > it doesn't support those kinds of things? tbl(1) is going to be supported fully at some point in the future. It is work-in-progress. I am not sure if pic(1) is actually used beyond the groff documentation, at least I don't remember anything in NetBSD where I checked. Similiar usage is found for eqn(1). > Is the thinking that groff has only been in base to support manpages? > If so, this project makes sense. But even so, some clarification of the > intent is needed. The use of (g)roff for anything but man pages is practically non-existent. If you want to use it for typesetting, you can always install it. Joerg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100524191701.GA29256>