On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 08:53:50AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Actually, the HTML versions are already there, which is why I assumed that > this STATUS item referred to the troff versions. Perhaps we have hit the > source of the original confusion here. > > I am in full agreement with the rest of what you wrote. > > Joshua.
Alrighty -- so I'm ok to go ahead and add the troff man's to the root of the tree, as it is with 2.0? Is there any source derivation? Like, are the troff's generated from the HTML versions, vice versa or what? Any dependancies in this regard I should know about? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Lingohr [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
