Follow-up Comment #3, bug#65189 (group groff):

Hi Dirk,

[comment #2 comment #2:]
> Sorry that I forgot to mention it: groff-1.23.0 is what I am using
> here.

Thanks for confirming that.  The problem you describe goes way back. :-O

> Because I wondered why man(1) has no problems in formatting the
> attached lsp-help.1 whereas
> 

> $ nroff -t -man lsp-help.broken.1


> 
> has, I had a closer look and here on my system (Gentoo) nroff(1) is
> called with *-mandoc*.  Depending on the current size of the terminal
> more options are used, e.g.:
> 

> nroff -mandoc -c -rLL=143n -rLT=143n -Tutf8


> 
> I now noticed that for some sizes everything is OK and for others the
> problems arise.
> 
> I mention this, because I had a look at the discussion in bug #65190
> mentioning a patch for *an.tmac* but not *andoc.tmac*.

The "-mandoc" argument is a red herring in this case; what matters is
configuration of the terminal width, something man-db man(1) does
automatically.

"andoc.tmac" is an unlikely site to patch for this problem.

See the "Files" section of groff_man(7):

       /usr/share/groff/1.23.0/tmac/andoc.tmac
              This brief groff program detects whether the man or mdoc
              macro package is being used by a document and loads the
              correct macro definitions, taking advantage of the fact
              that pages using them must call .TH or .Dd, respectively,
              before any other macros.  A man program or user typing,
              for example, “groff -mandoc page.1”, need not know which
              package the file page.1 uses.  Multiple man pages, in
              either format, can be handled; andoc reloads each macro
              package as necessary.

> I tried your suggested workaround and it works here.

Glad to hear it!

> I will try to follow all the discussions, because at least I learn a
> lot from it.

If you have any questions about anything to do with groff, please feel
free to post them to the groff at gnu dot org mailing list.

Regards,
Branden



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?65189>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/


Reply via email to