Your message dated Mon, 30 Nov 2020 22:26:28 +1100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#750202: GROFF_SGR [sic] variable not documented
has caused the Debian Bug report #750202,
regarding GROFF_SGR variable not documented
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
750202: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=750202
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: groff-base
Version: 1.22.2-5
According to the grotty man page, groff produces SGR sequences by
default to set bold and underline attributes for text. But I found
that I was not getting this output in manpages, whatever I tried
doing. For example, redirecting man's output to a file, the file would
contain overstrike sequences for bold and underline. I expected it to
contain ECMA-48 SGR sequences instead.
Eventually, I found that an environmental variable GROFF_SGR had to be
set to get the documented behaviour. There is a check for this in the
"mandoc.local" file added by Debian. The use of this variable should
either be removed or documented somewhere a user is likely to look.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 2020-11-18T17:13:41+0000, Gavin Smith wrote:
> If I remember correctly (I raised this bug over 6 years ago:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=750202) it is not
> GROFF_NO_SGR. It is GROFF_SGR.
I think you must be mistaken; there is no match for GROFF_SGR in the
current groff source tree, nor in its entire Git history (with patches
showing).
> Is it important that overstrike sequences be used by default for bold
> or underlined text? I know that "less" recognizes these, but I
> couldn't tell you what else does.
In my experience, less stuff (maybe I should say "fewer stuff"...)
recognizes these overstriking semantics than recognizes SGR escapes.
But some people, like Thomas Dickey and Ingo Schwarze, violently oppose
SGR escapes in nroff output.
At 2020-11-22T16:49:38+0000, Gavin Smith wrote:
> I found this bug report from earlier this year which was actually
> fixed this time around:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=963490
>
> If it has been fixed, that may explain why you didn't see what the
> problem was. In that case, this bug can probably be closed.
Okay. Closing per submitter.
Regards,
Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
