Hi, G. Branden Robinson wrote on Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 08:03:26PM -0500:
> The Texinfo manual is far too easy to overlook (I've certainly been > guilty of it) partly because the Texinfo ecosystem itself is not very > healthy. Last I checked (years ago), the texinfo development mailing > list was openly discussing its options for winding up the project. It's > just not very ergonomic for anyone except militant Emacs partisans, and > pinfo, the info browser with key bindings friendly to mere mortals, is > no longer actively maintained either, as I understand it. > > On top of that, our build does not even generate the manual in TeX form. > Which makes _perfect_ sense from a bootstrapping perspective--one > shouldn't need one typesetting system to build the other-- While i'm well aware that what i'm saying here is a commitment to a huge project, i'm willing to translate the whole groff texinfo documentation into groff_mdoc(7). It is going to cost me weeks of full-time work at least, but it seems worth it to get the groff documentation out of an obsolete format and out of a fragmented form, and to get rid of a hidden dependency of groff on the other typesetting system, TeX. It would imply that groff could build its own documentation for the terminal, in PDF, and in HTML. I have done another translation project of similar size before this: the translation of the OpenSSL perlpod(1) documentation to become the LibreSSL mdoc(7) documentation. Yours, Ingo