Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:49:38 -0400 From: Thomas Dickey <dickey@radix.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: groff alternative? Message-ID: <20050617194938.GA10194@saltmine.radix.net> In-Reply-To: <20050617192332.GE13006@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <20050615054209.L29741@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <20050615160741.GA55062@dragon.NUXI.org> <88862BDF-ED45-42CE-9B24-DEEED2E66C2C@mac.com> <20050615.212337.108191340.imp@bsdimp.com> <42B10804.2010308@mac.com> <20050617192332.GE13006@dragon.NUXI.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--azLHFNyN32YCQGCU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:23:32PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: >=20 > Yes. But the issue is, why trade one piece of non-BSDL licensed code for > another non-BSDL licensed piece of code?? What does changing from Groff > to Solaris Troff actually buy us?? Groff is the standard in Roff. Even > people writing books on systems with a native Troff install Groff to get > a more powerful and easier to use Roff. Solaris Troff is less capable (it won't handle ncurses' terminfo manpage). Sun doesn't _use_ troff. They went to SGML years ago. Troff on Solaris is a dead program. --=20 Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net --azLHFNyN32YCQGCU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (SunOS) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQFCsylQtIqByHxlDocRAvvhAJ9MkeA2WpGiYyT2nKX4qBFbz+/d5ACfRDk4 Fq3cBAhnEXhDW/cL2MwqX5A= =sjps -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --azLHFNyN32YCQGCU--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050617194938.GA10194>