Follow-up Comment #14, bug #63827 (project groff): [comment #13 comment #13:] > [comment #11 comment #11:] > > [comment #10 comment #10:] > > > Should the 1.23 announcement/news mention that: > > > * the pdfmark bundled with this release of groff is not the > > > latest code (and provide a pointer to that code)? > > > > I don't think they've diverged all that much. > > Keith addressed this in comment #12; I don't know if that changes > the conclusion any.
And today, there's _[https://osdn.net/users/keith/pf/groff-pdfmark/wiki/ChangeLog even more extensive divergence]_ than there was when I wrote comment #12. > > pdfroff(1) will continue to exist in groff 1.23.0 > > distributions and point readers to Keith's site. > > Ah, yes, I somehow missed [http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/commit/?id=948ccc55 commit 948ccc55], even though it > was cited in a comment to bug #63133, on which I'm cc:ed. Yet today, following a pull and update from git master, I _still_ see no reference in the NEWS file; given the extent of divergence, now, I think that the obsolescence of groff's pdfroff/pdfmark distribution deserves a mention in NEWS, as well as in pdfroff(1). _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63827> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/