Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 14:37:22 +0200 From: Steffen Nurpmeso <sdaoden@yandex.com> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org, "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] Replace gnu groff in base by heirloom doctools Message-ID: <20150519123722.KSZHLtTvPWw8%sdaoden@yandex.com> In-Reply-To: <20150519112644.GB52236@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> References: <20150514000211.GA9410@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <201505152342.t4FNgRgq076946@fire.js.berklix.net> <20150519112644.GB52236@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> wrote: |On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 01:42:26AM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote: |>> I think keeping a fully functionnal roff(7) toolchain part of the |>> base system is very good on a unix. |>> From what I could check I cannot find any regression when \ |>> migrating from gnu |>> groff to heirloom doctools, if there is a particular area \ |>> when you think extra |>> care is needed please share it. It seems you haven't checked at all. It seems to me that e.g. mdoc(7) of n-t-r seems to require quite a bit of work in order to be at all usable. |Heirloom in base is a win over groff because it has better \ |support for roff(7) |better font handling etc. The macros i use for myself don't work with n-t-r, too: once i truly looked (a few months ago) i found that i would have to rewrite all traps and other positioning in order to get that right. Despite that you seem to do what you want to do anyway, n-t-r is possibly a usable troff, if you go its way and deal with it you may be able to gain a bit nicer output _faster_ and without converting your beloved special fonts first, but in no way is n-t-r a _replacement_ for groff. Ciao, --steffen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150519123722.KSZHLtTvPWw8%sdaoden>