Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 14:44:01 -0700 From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> To: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au>, Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: groff alternative? Message-ID: <F569DB909C927A00B6933382@peregrin.orthanc.ca> In-Reply-To: <20050429200029.GC232@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <200504262010.49509@harrymail> <86k6mo0xmh.fsf@xps.des.no> <427157B7.6040203@mac.com> <200504290053.51912@harrymail> <427177FD.50809@dial.pipex.com> <20050429200029.GC232@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On 2005-4-30 6:00 AM +1000 Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> wrote: > 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. When the Solaris 10 source is released there will be an up-to-date alternative to groff. I'm planning to switch over to the Solaris troff ASAP. I've already started fixing mdoc to work with ditroff on another Solaris 10 box. --lyndon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F569DB909C927A00B6933382>