From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 1 05:37:18 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 0C1201065672 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 05:37:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erik@cederstrand.dk) Received: from csmtp3.one.com (csmtp3.one.com [91.198.169.23]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A0A58FC13 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 05:37:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.32] (0x573fa596.cpe.ge-1-1-0-1109.ronqu1.customer.tele.dk [87.63.165.150]) by csmtp3.one.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B3D24091A0; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 05:37:16 +0000 (UTC) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-79--992274866; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 From: Erik Cederstrand In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 07:37:15 +0200 Message-Id: References: <4C2AB793.4040601@laposte.net> <20100630034622.GA48794@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4C2B11A9.4020206@laposte.net> <4C2B6922.6090300@elischer.org> <20100630170757.GA52509@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <877EF62B-D2BE-422F-8545-DBC63E5AA682@cederstrand.dk> To: Tim Kientzle X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: 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 05:37:18 -0000 --Apple-Mail-79--992274866 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Den 30/06/2010 kl. 22.01 skrev Tim Kientzle: > > As many have pointed out, "replacing groff" is certainly > not a priority for the project. Our current groff works, > works reasonably well, and is likely to meet our > needs for at least another decade (unlike C or C++, > nroff functionality is not a moving target). > > But more importantly "correct man-page rendering" is actually > pretty hard. The issue is not the manpages in the > FreeBSD base---we can and should clean those up > and experimentally rendering them with other tools is > a good way to verify them. The problem comes with third-party > manpages, including those installed by ports. Either the > in-base replacement is pretty much bug-for-bug compatible > with groff or else everyone will have to install groff anyway, > which defeats most of the point of replacing groff in base. > > That said, if someone has tested an alternative to ensure that > it provides the same quality output as groff across a wide swathe > of base and ports-installed manpages, and there are other real > advantages (license, size, features, complexity), then I think it's worth > considering. Thanks. Just the clarification I was looking for. Erik --Apple-Mail-79--992274866--