From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 19 15:37:03 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EE229E8 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 15:37:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com (mail-wg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5B9E1D20 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 15:37:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgfl8 with SMTP id l8so22634695wgf.2 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 08:37:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=geyBeDJnQMcPSoNZfNHZATOzj+HSZOKq1qRH+ZGex9o=; b=jKdpFsYH1sToZHrmXgnowut4K9UipoZhTNqgOsFuT/gQmEfLuiaJkK5apvcbpblgt6 r42LNGTZDMtMU0JuPN7H6NPkRex7kFkoPGl4SuUdylpWjEx4J+OhIes09lXqKspWdoXa +oi5Hb3GY2WmwiBszuWrJoWbdj72yOX83/gJHbMDeQd8gTnxro36EB9Q4WQWdJpXPf6b dY2G3EcucIMMzqQVLdc6TwxYBmYJxboZEaVgKWxGkUaSFtoEWySxj/3XffeQ2riyybV4 A99CvSTceaRRqFWk7xOcmL7OpWaUm1/lchpfB4NQ0Wqy9PNbAdc994sSHo9bsBd1Scxp udVA== X-Received: by 10.194.121.38 with SMTP id lh6mr55257241wjb.2.1432049820952; Tue, 19 May 2015 08:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ivaldir.etoilebsd.net ([2001:41d0:8:db4c::1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id wv3sm22337034wjc.0.2015.05.19.08.36.59 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 May 2015 08:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Baptiste Daroussin Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 17:36:58 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin To: Steffen Nurpmeso Cc: current@freebsd.org, "Julian H. Stacey" Subject: Re: [RFC] Replace gnu groff in base by heirloom doctools Message-ID: <20150519153654.GC52236@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> References: <20150514000211.GA9410@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <201505152342.t4FNgRgq076946@fire.js.berklix.net> <20150519112644.GB52236@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <20150519123722.KSZHLtTvPWw8%sdaoden@yandex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hOcCNbCCxyk/YU74" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150519123722.KSZHLtTvPWw8%sdaoden@yandex.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 15:37:03 -0000 --hOcCNbCCxyk/YU74 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 02:37:22PM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: > Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > |On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 01:42:26AM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote: >=20 > |>> I think keeping a fully functionnal roff(7) toolchain part of the > |>> base system is very good on a unix. >=20 > |>> 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. >=20 > 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. Lots of work has been done recently on heirloom in particular regarding the support of mdoc(7) and I have opened tickets for all issues I could fin= d and they have been fixed. Please point me to issues you can have regarding mdoc= (7). (Note that I'm speaking of doctools as of latest git, not latest release) >=20 > |Heirloom in base is a win over groff because it has better \ > |support for roff(7) > |better font handling etc. >=20 > 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. Can you tell me more about the macros you do use and a sample document so I= can check and see if we can add support for it? >=20 > 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. As I said you will be able to use groff from ports. I do not claim that n-t= -r is a replacement for groff in general I propose it for a replacement for groff= in base. groff in base is stuck at 1.19.2 version while upstream is at 1.22.3 version which in particular has a couple of fixes for mdoc(7) format and a bit more. Every user of groff will have huge benefit using newer groff versions: bug fixes, full functionnalities available etc. Best regards, Bapt --hOcCNbCCxyk/YU74 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlVbWJUACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EwfgACffQVe3m1VmKEQjbnxUsOWR7ZO vaoAoJPyYye2U0UATzlsUfl2Vb1p/dNZ =f+5w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --hOcCNbCCxyk/YU74--