On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 09:31:05PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > > > I'd be happy to submit patches once it's converted to roff but I > > > > just can't bring myself to submit documentation fixes to roff > > > > docs written in texinfo. > > > > > > Sorry, this won't happen for various reasons. > > > > I know you've told me before but it must not have been a very > > satisfying answer since I can't remember. What are the reasons? It > > would seem like we could fine enough groff hackers to redo the docs > > in roff. > > There are some reasons, the first of them rather imperative. > > . Documentation of GNU projects should be in texinfo format. Amen.
Err, there are lots of so-called GNU projects that aren't documented in texinfo. > . groff.texinfo is just a reference. It is not meant as an example > how to do nifty things with groff. As that, the format is really > of no importance -- I would really like to see the UTP to be > extended to cover groff features, as mentioned already. > > . There is no equivalent to the `info' program for groff input since > no good groff2texi converter exists. I'm not sure how you are going to get more roff users when the first thing they see is the project not using its own product. A documentation tool where the documentation for it is written in a different tool? Come on, nobody is going to say "hey, that sounds good, let's switch to that". -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com _______________________________________________ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
