Re: Hungarumlauts in built-in fonts

I discovered the U-* fonts were missing once I upgraded to Debian 12 (Bookworm) last year: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1051248 I don't think that is in any way this is any way related to the Void package, however. - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the

Re: Is there a Groff showcase?

Perhaps the author of the site doesn't think it would fit the site's scope but it seems to me that troff.org would be the most logical site to host such a gallery. - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Web:

Re: Man page customization after 1.23?

* On 2023 08 Jul 18:22 -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Hi Nate, I had some time and inclination to experiment today on my Arch laptop. > At 2023-07-08T18:02:34-0500, Nate Bargmann wrote: > > * On 2023 08 Jul 17:22 -0500, Ronan Pigott via wrote: > > > Ok. For now I

Re: Findings: just run gxditview on your system and click

* On 2023 29 Jul 07:29 -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Okay, so we see the bug on Debian 11 (bullseye), now termed > "old-old-stable". The unfortunate choice of three code names starting B strikes again! old-old-stable should be Buster (Debian 10), old-stable should be Bullseye (Debian 11)

Re: Help wanted: just run gxditview on your system and click

I can confirm the menu is not responsive on Debian Bullseye but does work properly on Bookworm, at least I can select the Open and Quit items and get the expected result (Groff 1.22.4 on both). The menu also works similarly on an up-to-date Arch Linux system (Groff 1.23). All three systems are

Re: an.tmac, .TH: shows the same text twice in the header! Why necessary?

* On 2023 22 Jul 14:22 -0500, Bjarni Ingi Gislason wrote: > The text "SENSIBLE-TERMINAL-EMULATOR" is output twice in the header, > is once not enough and why? (Is this necessary(?)) On a terminal or PDF form read on a monitor, once is certainly enough. My limited understanding of manual pages

Re: Man page customization after 1.23?

* On 2023 08 Jul 18:17 -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Hi Ronan, > > At 2023-07-08T21:03:03+, Ronan Pigott wrote: > [LESS_TERMCAP_*] > > I wrote: > > > Today I learned such a feature exists. Despite Mark Nudelman having had > > > up to 39 years to document it, apparently the only place

Re: Man page customization after 1.23?

* On 2023 08 Jul 17:22 -0500, Ronan Pigott via wrote: > Ok. For now I've decided to export MANROFFOPT="-c" along with MANPAGER. Thanks for that tip, Ronan. I just updated my Arch VM and Groff 1.23 was installed and bold text was shown as emboldened bright white but Italics were simply

Re: Man page customization after 1.23?

* On 2023 08 Jul 14:56 -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Hi Ronan, > > At 2023-07-08T08:46:40+, Ronan Pigott wrote: > > After updating to 1.23 I can no longer change the color of man pages > > with LESS_TERMCAP_* vars. > > Today I learned such a feature exists. Despite Mark Nudelman

Re: man(7), hyphen, and minus

* On 2022 24 Dec 16:45 -0600, Russ Allbery wrote: > "G. Branden Robinson" writes: > > At 2022-12-23T12:49:15-0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> I've been curious: how much use do you see of groff outside of man > >> pages? About 18 months ago I received some good help on this list for setting up

Re: Happy new Sun (was: man-pages-6.02 released)

* On 2022 23 Dec 11:52 -0600, Deri wrote: > On Thursday, 22 December 2022 21:57:52 GMT G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > > You can take it as a Christmas present Now, I'm officially waiting > > > for groff-1.23 to be released to declare it as a dependency. Deri > > > sent me a present for

Re: words (and commands) that I learnt because of Branden

* On 2022 10 Dec 07:56 -0600, John Gardner wrote: > > > > Actually, "horde" and "hoard" are homophones > > > FFS, I keep getting those spellings mixed up. Thank you. :D It's a penchant of collectors to hoard a horde of whatever interests them. - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live

Re: man(7): .TP: Change minimum distance between tag and paragraph from 1 to 2 (subjective)

* On 2022 16 Nov 09:56 -0600, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Printed 11/16/122 2022‐11‐16 1 Looks like a y2k failure. Haven't seen one of those in a while! - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears

Re: Vim syntax highlighting for *roff (was: Bug#1019257: ...)

At the risk of starting an editor skirmish. ;-) * On 2022 06 Sep 15:05 -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > I didn't _finish_ to my satisfaction--I ran into some kind of problems > involving the boundaries of the highlighting vs. the boundaries of the > lexical matching, which made some nested

Re: Bug#1019257: vim: syntax highlight: roff, man: man highlighting could be improved with some roff rules

I don't know if the following is useful for the bug report so I am simply replying here as I found the described behavior annoying as well. At the time I grabbed the most recent version of nroff.vim syntax file I could fine which I see is dated 2021 Mar 28. I placed it in

Re: "Writing my PhD using groff"

Hi Branden. Sometimes I scan a document and enter proof reading mode. I submit this small patch to remove a misplaced 'the': 8<--- $ diff -u ms-1.ms ms-edited.ms --- ms-1.ms 2022-07-24 12:58:02.997175471 -0500 +++ ms-edited.ms

Re: Whither changelogs

* On 2021 06 Oct 09:04 -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Why is Vim, or this plugin you speak of, disregarding the modeline at > the bottom of the file? At the risk of wading into this, I just want to note that on Debian, modelines are disabled by default and it is up to the user to enable

Re: "Can't break line warning"

* On 2021 15 Aug 08:59 -0500, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote: > > > The horizontal line output by the \l escape is 6 inches, the same as the > > declared line length. > > troff: letterhead-demo.mm:31: warning [p 1, 0.5i]: can't break line > > You have a tab after the "\l'6i'", which counts as part of the

Re: mm(7) DT string and super/subscripts (was: troff Memorandum Macros documentation derived from the paper "MM - Memorandum Macros")

* On 2021 11 Aug 20:30 -0500, Dave Kemper wrote: > On 8/9/21, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > \v'-.5'\s-4\&2\s0\v'.5' > > > > The use of \&, unnecessary here as far as I know, suggests to me that > > someone got burned by the magic syntax of the \s escape sequence. > > The \& is

Re: mm(7) DT string and super/subscripts (was: troff Memorandum Macros documentation derived from the paper "MM - Memorandum Macros")

* On 2021 09 Aug 10:05 -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > It's interesting to me that the following two are not equivalent. > > foo\v'-.5'\s-4bar\s0\v'.5' > foo\u\s-4bar\s0\d > > Our use of the term "half-line motion" might require some clarification. I see the groff.7.man file in

Re: mm(7) DT string and super/subscripts (was: troff Memorandum Macros documentation derived from the paper "MM - Memorandum Macros")

* On 2021 09 Aug 07:12 -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Hi, Nate! Good morning, Branden. > I took it out as part of commit 4f3b1e33[1], 13 July (just a few weeks > ago). I was revising the material that had to do with the `ISODATE` > macro and `Iso` register, both of which are groff

Re: troff Memorandum Macros documentation derived from the paper "MM - Memorandum Macros"

First, thanks for the replies, they are instructive. To close the loop on this thread, thanks especially to Kurt and Branden for providing resources on MM and MS. I read through both and I was working with MM and then started leaning toward MS until a few days ago when I discovered this

Re: An introduction to groff (and man page) input and concepts

Hi Branden and all. I took the bait and looked up the linux-man mailing list archive and from there found the link to graff_man(7) and from it groff_man_style(7) on man7.org (the linux-man project page. Great resource by the linux-man project, BTW). I think the effort with groff_man_style(7) is

Re: Typo in groff_mm.7.man

You're very welcome, Branden. - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Web: https://www.n0nb.us Projects: https://github.com/N0NB GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819 signature.asc

Typo in groff_mm.7.man

I found a typo in the Groff MM manual page. A diff file is attached. - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Web: https://www.n0nb.us Projects: https://github.com/N0NB GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689

Re: troff Memorandum Macros documentation derived from the paper "MM - Memorandum Macros"

BTW, the preceding message was in no way intended to slight the mom macros. I am reading the installed documentation for that package as well. Mostly I am curious of the history of mm and ms and why it seems two very similar macro packages emerged. - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we

Re: troff Memorandum Macros documentation derived from the paper "MM - Memorandum Macros"

Hi Kurt and all. In your blog article you mention trying all the macro packages years back and decided that mm was to your liking. I've not used any of the macro packages except for man and wonder if I would get use out of either mm or ms for single page letters and some short documents where

Re: Macros for printing envelopes?

* On 2021 17 Jul 18:14 -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Not in groff world! To be militantly consistent, I suppose, in groff, > standard paper formats are always at least as long as they are wide. > > groff_tmac(5) discusses the "papersize" macro file. > > papersize > This macro

Re: Macros for printing envelopes?

Thanks, Peter! My printer, a Brother HL-5240, takes input from the manual tray and like you I insert the envelope and then print. Typically, I feed the envelope in with the short side at the return address in first. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure if that is portrait or landscape

Macros for printing envelopes?

Hi all. Reading through a few of the threads on Reddit what others are using groff for got me to thinking that I have a use case that has to be better than what I've been doing. One practice I have adopted recently is to print the address and return address directly to an envelope as I will

Re: Question about ?roff on Reddit

I learned there is a Groff Reddit as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/groff/ It seems to have quite a bit of activity which is fantastic. - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Web: https://www.n0nb.us Projects:

Re: Question about ?roff on Reddit

* On 2021 15 Jul 12:44 -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > At 2021-07-15T18:09:37+0200, Wim Stockman wrote: > > Hi Peter, it is already a big bunch of comments. Branden replied with > > a cool word count example in groff. > > > > :-) > > Much as I love high fives, I can't claim credit for that

Re: getting more out of man pages with less(1) (was: [bug #59962] soelim(1) man page uses pic diagram--should it?)

* On 2021 17 May 11:50 -0500, Dave Kemper wrote: > Maybe less's build system has a switch to compile in a different > default? Maybe this is a recent change? Maybe I'm completely wrong? > I haven't looked at the source or built it myself from github; I'm > going by the behavior on my systems,

Re: UTP 1.1 build failure on Debian Stable

No errors building on my up-to-date Debian Testing (Bullseye) laptop. A few minor warnings of table width: $ make /usr/bin/groff -Tpdf -P-pletter -z -step -rpdf:bm.nr=1 -ms -rRef=1 -wall utp_book.t >/dev/null 2>utp.aux.tmp; \ mv utp.aux.tmp utp.aux; \ /usr/bin/awk -f toc.awk utp.aux

Re: UTP 1.1 build failure on Debian Stable

* On 2020 20 Oct 08:35 -0500, Deri wrote: > It is looking for the fonts in the ghostscript 9.26 directories but > debian have updated to 9.27. You will have a file called "download" > probably in /usr/share/groff/1.22.4/font/devpdf, if you edit this file > to convert all references 9.26 to

UTP 1.1 build failure on Debian Stable

Good morning. This is my first crack at trying to do something with groff other than man pages. Running 'make' in the src directory I get: $ make /usr/bin/groff -Tpdf -P-pletter -z -step -rpdf:bm.nr=1 -ms -rRef=1 -wall utp_book.t >/dev/null 2>utp.aux.tmp; \ mv utp.aux.tmp utp.aux; \

Re: Groff macro to make .UR and .UE links clickable in PDF?

* On 2020 10 Jul 10:27 -0500, Steve Izma wrote: > I think it's an abomination that a man page extends it's line > length to fit the width of the terminal; built into the macros > should be a 65- or 70 character maximum width. It's interesting > that the Python Style Guide insists on a maximum line

Re: Hypertext solution

I would say this is a very good first effort. I do see this in the NROFF rendered by man as shown in my Mutt session: In a sentence (with punctuation surrounding) Testing .URL in the middle

Re: Groff macro to make .UR and .UE links clickable in PDF?

* On 2020 19 Jun 16:24 -0500, Jan Stary wrote: > When I run gropdf over the groff -Z output, > I get the pdf file attached. > > Viewing it in macos's Preview, > the link is clickable and opens > http://www.frijid.net/madness/madness.html I concur with Deri as the link is not clickable in

Re: An alternative to info(1) ?

* On 2020 17 Feb 12:38 -0600, Morten Bo Johansen wrote: > On 2020-02-17 Nate Bargmann wrote: > > > I have used oinfo for a long time. > > You meant to say pinfo? ;) I did, indeed. Vim highlighted it but I paid no further attention. Sigh... - Nate -- "The optimist

Re: [groff] An alternative to info(1) ?

* On 2020 17 Feb 07:59 -0600, Mike Bianchi wrote: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 07:55:31PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > > I *hate* info. It has made Linux less available to a lot of people. > > BUT info sometimes has information that man(1) lacks. > > So _maybe_ an approach would be to make an

Re: GNUism in groff tests, was: pic anomalies

Echoing these thoughts was this thread on the Ag Talk (agricultural focused set of forums) forum yesterday regarding an update to the Weather Underground app: https://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=897280=7946171#M7946171 Perhaps companies, or rather the management of companies,

Re: [groff] .SY/.YS, was: Duff's Device

* On 2018 27 Jun 11:52 -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > I'm still hoping that at some point, we may be able to get the > > groff manual pages at least half-portable, even though that may > > still be a long way. Use of .SY/.YS is a major step backwards. > > My objectives do not include

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

* On 2018 21 Apr 09:56 -0500, John Gardner wrote: > We just need a post-processor that can generate reusable, *stylable* HTML > output for an endless and unpredictable range of both site layouts and > portable devices. Intelligently-structured markup is the first step – most > front-end developers

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

* On 2018 19 Apr 18:47 -0500, James K. Lowden wrote: > On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 01:44:06 +1000 > John Gardner wrote: > > > > You might like to believe that eqn, tbl, and pic could be processed > > > with grohtml > > > > I've seen grohtml's complexity and was bewildered.

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

* On 2018 19 Apr 13:13 -0500, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > But the -l option does exactly one thing that is easily described > in one short sentence that can hardly be misunderstood ("The name > arguments are interpreted as filenames"). As it has been a few days since I first read mandoc's man(1) page

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

* On 2018 19 Apr 02:56 -0500, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > > I know we're veering off topic for this list. > > You must be new here. Yes. :-D I do need to spend some time in the archives. - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

* On 2018 18 Apr 19:30 -0500, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Hi Nate, > > Nate Bargmann wrote on Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 06:52:44PM -0500: > > > After reading a bit about mdoc, > > I'm sure here you mean mandoc(1), the program, not mdoc(7), the > markup language. Yes, indeed

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

* On 2018 18 Apr 12:26 -0500, Larry Kollar wrote: > At work, we’re in the first stages of moving our writers over to a > DITA-based CMS. Well, you forced me to look up DITA. ;-) > Ingo’s mandoc solution is a good way to produce text/HTML output, and you > can use groff for PDF. The only thing

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

* On 2018 16 Apr 12:37 -0500, d...@chuzzlewit.myzen.co.uk wrote: > i have been looking at merging the groff.texi file and various groff man > pages > into one compendium pdf. The program which does the merging is still rather > beta, and probably would have problems with other texinfo files,

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

Thanks, Ingo, for that very informative reply. I did just start reading the mdoc man page after sending that mail. Thanks for the additional resources. I shall check them out as I continue on with this aspect of the project. - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all

[groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

I have long been involved with a project that has lacked good documentation for nearly all of its existence. We've had documentation, but it isn't in a good format for generating man, HTML, or PDF versions. Long ago I started with Docbook and then that got to a point no one else would touch it