Update of bug #55941 (project groff):
Status: None => Wont Fix
Assigned to: None => gbranden
Open/Closed: Open => Closed
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #3:
I concur with Dave and Ingo. `test-groff` is nice and convenient but I don't
think we need any other special wrappers.
Also, we really need more unit and regression tests, and we're slowly getting
them.
(I guess you could say test-groff serves as a kind of integration test. It
doesn't quite simulate an installation environment, but once I learned how it
works I realized it comes pretty close.)
I also don't quite grasp Bjarni's original use case.
Why
DEFINE nroff test-nroff -mandoc -rF=0
when you could just as easily
DEFINE nroff nroff -whatever -options -you -like
As Dave noted in #57510, there is a bit of tension between nroff and {g,t}roff
in that the former does locale detection but lacks a -P option. The locale
detection in particular makes it not a simple subsetted compatibility wrapper
for troff as it claims to be.
But since it's my intention to add -P to nroff, I think we can get the best of
both worlds.
I'm closing this as wontfix for now, but if Bjarni can come up with a more
compelling argument for test-nroff I could reconsider.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?55941>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
