Follow-up Comment #3, bug #51003 (project groff):
> Follow-up Comment #1, bug #51003 (project groff):
>
> I suspect this ticket to be invalid.
>
A suspicion is a guess. I have not seen any (valid) evidence for it to
be true.
> > Man-pages include "doc"-macros with a request ".mso mdoc/...".
>
> No. They don't. In the complete OpenBSD ports tree (nearly 10k ports),
i'm
> not aware of a single port doing that.
>
You are right in a way. Clumsy wording on my part. Better is
'"doc"-macros are included with a request ".mso mdoc/..." if needed."
I was pointing out how the directory "mdoc" is involved in the inability of
"test-groff" to function correctly.
[...]
> > A fix could be
>
> A fix for what exactly? Which problem are you trying to solve?
>
My subject line shows that.
And a solution would also get rid of the following in the "PROBLEMS" file:
"* Processing mdoc man pages like `groff_mdoc.n' fails if I use
`test-groff'. Why?
The mdoc package works only after installation, not with test-groff.
Reason is that the macro files of mdoc get stripped off the `doc-'
prefix before they are copied to the final destination."
> > to create the directory and links in that directory
>
> Certainly not. There is no need whatsoever to have duplicate versions of
> files in the source tree. That would only cause confusion.
>
It could (to whom?, and why?. Is it solvable?). Creating the missing
directory and the links in the git-repository was for me the simplest
solution.
Another is to let the Makefile create the directory and links. And adding
"tmac/mdoc" to the ".gitignore" file. See for example "build-aux".
[...]
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?51003>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
_______________________________________________
bug-groff mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-groff
