Re: [groff] [Groff] Next release - maintainership

Hi Dave, Dave Kemper wrote on Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 06:18:40PM -0500: > On 2/21/18, Ingo Schwarze wrote: >> You can hardly use *roff without >> macros (well, there are rumours about a few people using their very >> own, personal macro sets, but that's certainly the exception

Re: [groff] [Groff] Next release - maintainership

Thanks, Ingo. You make some good points. A few responses inlined below. On 2/21/18, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Dave Kemper wrote on Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 02:26:15PM -0500: > >> Does it make any sense to split groff into two packages: one that is >> just the base groff system, and

Re: [groff] [Groff] Next release - maintainership

Hi, Dave Kemper wrote on Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 02:26:15PM -0500: > Does it make any sense to split groff into two packages: one that is > just the base groff system, and one that is just the macro sets? I don't think it makes much sense. You can hardly use *roff without macros (well, there are

Re: [groff] [Groff] Next release - maintainership

Catching up with some old groff-list email: On 9/16/17, Bertrand Garrigues wrote: > I can take in charge part of the job of the maintainer: the build > system, making release; I've also studied src/roff/troff source code and > I'm planning to propose changes in

Re: [Groff] Next release - maintainership

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017, Gour wrote: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:02:48 -0400 > Peter Schaffter wrote: > > Hello Peter, > > I have visited your site and I'm thrilled with the beauty of your documents > produced with groff/mom and must admit that mom is the primary reason I'm >

Re: [Groff] Next release - maintainership

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:02:48 -0400 Peter Schaffter wrote: Hello Peter, I have visited your site and I'm thrilled with the beauty of your documents produced with groff/mom and must admit that mom is the primary reason I'm looking whether groff/mom can eliminate my need to

Re: [Groff] Next release - maintainership

Bertrand -- On Wed, Sep 27, 2017, Bertrand Garrigues wrote: > OK then I volunteer to be a maintainer. As said previously I won't be > able to address all the problems submitted on the list, but I can still > take in charge part of the work. I, for one, welcome your taking on the role of

Re: [Groff] Next release - maintainership

Hi Ted, On Sat, Sep 16 2017 at 08:43:05 PM, Ted Harding wrote: > So my suggestion would be that someone who knows their way > around the organisation of gnu.oeg (and I find it confusing!) > should undertake the task of establishing a real maintainer. > This might

Re: [Groff] Next release - maintainership

[See in-line below] On Sat, 2017-09-16 at 21:11 +0200, Bertrand Garrigues wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm currently preparing the next release of groff (I still have to > commit a few changes in the build system but I'm not far from making a > candidate package). In order to upload a tarball (into

[Groff] Next release - maintainership

Hi all, I'm currently preparing the next release of groff (I still have to commit a few changes in the build system but I'm not far from making a candidate package). In order to upload a tarball (into alpha.gnu.org and ftp.gnu.org) I mailed ftp-upl...@gnu.org so that they could give me access to