At 2023-04-27T11:06:20-0400, Carlos wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 05:24:00PM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > mso is a request, and it is documented in groff(7) like other > > requests. > > > > I might have time to follow up on the rest later, but I will note > > briefly that "Ignored because insecure." does not sound like > > language I recognize from any groff release. It sounds exactly like > > mandoc(1) documentation--specifically the mandoc_roff(7) page. > > mandoc is a separate project and groff developers have no > > responsibility for it. > > You're correct. Amazing
I can think of some other people who are amazed when I'm right... [snip] > and mandoc is also the formatting part of groff No. It is a completely independent software project with only slightly overlapping goals. > or else running groff would be useless, I suppose some mandoc(1) advocates regard groff as useless if they never have any need for typesetting. Or they use a TeX distribution, or Lout...or FrameMaker... > am I wrong? correct me if so. I'm a bit tired. The history of typesetting software on Unix is lengthy. When groff 1.23.0 is released, a history I thoroughly revised and updated will be available in the roff(7) man page. > And on groff(7) > > .mso file The same as .so except that file is searched in the tmac > directories. > > and therein lies the problem without a kludge > .mso never loads man.local producing the unwanted blank page > .mso never loads man.local producing the unwanted blank page > , .do does instead on 1.22.4 without injecting that blank page I don't understand your complaint. Also, do you mean ".do" or ".so"? Each is a distinctly meaningful request to groff(1). Did you ever grep your man.local file for blank lines as I suggested? Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature