From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 1 04:35:02 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71E041065674 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:35:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cyrille.lefevre-lists@laposte.net) Received: from out2.laposte.net (out1.laposte.net [193.251.214.118]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18A58FC12 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:35:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out1.laposte.net (unknown [10.98.49.225]) by mwinf8210.laposte.net (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id E664E1C00605 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 06:05:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from meplus.info (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf8211.laposte.net (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id D214C7000084; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 06:05:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.133] (156.64.99-84.rev.gaoland.net [84.99.64.156]) by mwinf8211.laposte.net (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 2930E7000083; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 06:05:28 +0200 (CEST) X-ME-UUID: 20100701040529168.2930E7000083@mwinf8211.laposte.net Message-ID: <4C2C1408.6080703@laposte.net> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 06:05:28 +0200 From: Cyrille Lefevre Organization: ACME User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070326 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Julian H. Stacey" References: <201006302100.o5UL0L5X058705@fire.js.berklix.net> In-Reply-To: <201006302100.o5UL0L5X058705@fire.js.berklix.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-me-spamlevel: not-spam X-me-spamrating: 33.200001 X-me-spamcause: OK, (-170)(0000)gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrvdelhedrtdejucetggdotefuucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuoehnohhnvgeqnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenlhhinhhugiculddquddtmdenfhhrvggvsghsugefgiculddqfedtmdenuefuffefgiculddqfedtmd Cc: Steve Kargl , Julian Elischer , Erik Cederstrand , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dwb : groff replacement proposal X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 04:35:02 -0000 Le 30/06/2010 23:00, Julian H. Stacey a =E9crit : >> Den 30/06/2010 kl. 19.07 skrev Steve Kargl: Hi, first of all, I'm not asking to rid out groff from FreeBSD, but I know that *BSD aims to be FSF not aware. I've just seen a few days ago that the "Documenters Work Bench" is=20 available for download. for the ones who don't know what is the DWB, it's the nroff/troff=20 package which inspired groff... no more than this. I then inform you about a possible replacement of groff w/ the DWB. well, the license has to be studed, the troff driver list would be=20 minimal and the mdoc macros would probably be adapted. however, it would probably render manual pages on tty, which is the=20 primary usage asked, I am wrong ? >>> The fact remains that there is no available alternative that >>> contains the functionality of groff. maybe not all functionalities, but at least the one which is to render=20 well on tty. I may be wrong... of course, for printing, groff will be=20 more adavanced, but is this really needed for the common usage ? and if=20 this feature is needed, it may be sufficient to have if from ports. >> I still can't read from this discussion if FreeBSD base actually needs= >> all the functionality that groff provides, and if the proposed >> alternatives are lacking needed functionality which cannot be worked >> around by simple changes to the distributed man-pages like the ones >> committed in the last weeks. >> >> I may be horribly misinformed, but man-page rendering does seem like a= >> fairly simple task. you're right. > There's more use of groff than just being a man page builder. > > I personaly use it for lots of things, eg this point doesn't require groff in src/ :-) > Doubtless some other groff users too, whether or not on FreeBSD mail li= sts. > There's been a roff in Unix since V6 ie 1978 or so. Principle > of least surprise tilts us to try to avoid discarding it from > src/ to ports/, as it would make our Unix less easy to use than > others (& we BSDs are supposed to be true Unix inheritance :-) nobody's asking to get rid of *roff... > Even BSD needs groff: > If some people might rewrite all FreeBSD manuals in some > other format, that would still leave other BSD uses of groff eg: > new imports to src/ of bits from other BSD eg Net/Open/Dragon whate= ver, > ditto if we import sources from other Unix eg Linux, > Solaris, HP-UX etc,& just think of the vast swathe of 3rd > party PD software in ports, chunks written by long time Unix > people, who of course have written manuals for tools in > roff/ nroff/ troff/ groff type syntax. if the mdoc macros may be adapted to the DWB, there would be no loss of=20 functionality and since the usual manual pages uses the man macros,=20 which is of course provided as well as the mm and ms macros ones. it's not even impossible than the DWB render better then groff :-) in any case, it's just a story of macros, no more than this, no need to=20 rewrite anything and so. the only problem may be the use of GNUism as if someone wanted to run as = bash script under dash... they are wrong to go this way. > Tossing groff out of src/ to ports/ (as someone suggested a month > or so back) would be bad. except if an acceptable replacement alternative exists and the DWB may=20 be the one ? Regards, Cyrille Lefevre --=20 mailto:Cyrille.Lefevre-lists@laposte.net