> When you get time, I'm curious to know details of the build failure > you're seeing.
This was on Ubuntu 24.04 on an amd64 laptop. I don't think it was so much that I have an obscure system as that I had an old compiler that was missing some modern include file. If you want details, I'm happy to try again and send you logs. > You don't have to edit the man page sources, and I would not advise you > to hurriedly do so. You could alter your test. I've released a new version of xlbiff to Debian with both changes: I've taken the style advice where it made sense in the manual pages, and I've altered my test to not fail where I choose to ignore groff's style advice. > [-ww]: I gave this quite a bit of thought. Yes, I can see the problem with "warn all", and I appreciate both the effort you have put into making useful warning categories for us authors and the time you took to explain your thinking here. One way to control the proliferation of meaningless "all" categories might be to use version-correlated names: "-w w1.24" could mean "w as known to groff 1.24", "-w w1.25" could mean "w as known to groff 1.25", etc. > As you might have noticed, GNU troff's warnings now identify the warning > category they belong to, I did notice, and this is a lovely feature. I'm a big fan of diagnostics packed with helpful info for debugging. Thank you, < Stephen
