Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 06:00:30 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: groff alternative? Message-ID: <20050429200029.GC232@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <427177FD.50809@dial.pipex.com> References: <200504262010.49509@harrymail> <86k6mo0xmh.fsf@xps.des.no> <427157B7.6040203@mac.com> <200504290053.51912@harrymail> <427177FD.50809@dial.pipex.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2005-Apr-29 00:55:41 +0100, Alex Zbyslaw wrote: >Since no-one had a sensible answer, why not try a version of original >nroff from say 4.3BSD. Hunting around, I found this: >http://www.tuhs.org/. Hopefully the most used macros will have stayed >the same. Actually, they haven't. The FreeBSD man pages are written using mdoc(7), not man(7). The current version of mdoc(7) in FreeBSD needs long names - which are supported by ditroff and groff but not the older nroff. I don't believe the nroff in either 4.3BSD or 2.11BSD can support long names and neither include a mdoc(7) implementation. 4.4BSD includes mdoc(7) but also GNU groff - though a quick look at the tmac.mdoc* files suggests that it might work with an old (4.3 or 2.11) nroff. If you're only worried about ports, most of those will use man(7), not mdoc(7) - though there are probably a few that use mdoc(7). -- Peter Jeremy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050429200029.GC232>