On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:13:07PM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote: > I welcome this change, but groff is used for much more than manpages. > What happens to pic, tbl, and the other troff-related "little > languages"? How can you say mdocml is "completely replacing" groff if > it doesn't support those kinds of things?
tbl(1) is going to be supported fully at some point in the future. It is work-in-progress. I am not sure if pic(1) is actually used beyond the groff documentation, at least I don't remember anything in NetBSD where I checked. Similiar usage is found for eqn(1). > Is the thinking that groff has only been in base to support manpages? > If so, this project makes sense. But even so, some clarification of the > intent is needed. The use of (g)roff for anything but man pages is practically non-existent. If you want to use it for typesetting, you can always install it. Joerg _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
