Baptiste Daroussin <b...@freebsd.org> wrote:
|On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 01:42:26AM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
|>> I think keeping a fully functionnal roff(7) toolchain part of the
|>> base system is very good on a unix.
|>> From what I could check I cannot find any regression when \
|>> migrating from gnu
|>> groff to heirloom doctools, if there is a particular area \
|>> when you think extra
|>> care is needed please share it.
It seems you haven't checked at all.
It seems to me that e.g. mdoc(7) of n-t-r seems to require quite
a bit of work in order to be at all usable.
|Heirloom in base is a win over groff because it has better \
|support for roff(7)
|better font handling etc.
The macros i use for myself don't work with n-t-r, too: once
i truly looked (a few months ago) i found that i would have to
rewrite all traps and other positioning in order to get that
Despite that you seem to do what you want to do anyway, n-t-r is
possibly a usable troff, if you go its way and deal with it you
may be able to gain a bit nicer output _faster_ and without
converting your beloved special fonts first, but in no way is
n-t-r a _replacement_ for groff.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"