Re: [groff] [mom] documentation typo single-quote inline
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020, Marcus Atilius Regulus wrote: > There seems to be a typo in mom's documentation: > https://schaffter.ca/mom/momdoc/inlines.html#inline-characters-groff > > It says: > Open (left) single-quote\[oq] > Close (right) single-quote \[oq] > > should be imo: > Close (right) single-quote \[cq] Thanks. I do like a good pair of eagle eyes. -- Peter Schaffter http://www.schaffter.ca
Re: discrepant groff configurations
Hi Colin, > Really, the weird thing is not so much the existence of the current > symlink, as the fact that the directories under $(dataprogramdir) are > versioned. True. > but it's quite possible that it would have been better to abolish the > versioned directories. And not too late? > Anyway, groff's build system was more or less completely rewritten > between 1.22.3 and 1.22.4 (Bertrand's automake conversion), so that > will certainly confound any attempts to compare different > distributions if you aren't comparing like version for like. I'm 1.22.4 on an out-of-date Arch Linux. groff(1) here refers to an non-existant, and odd sounding, directory. $ man groff | grep site-tmac | xargs ls -d ls: cannot access '/usr/lib/groff/site-tmac': No such file or directory /usr/share/groff/site-tmac $ The existence of site-tmac as a sibling of 1.22.4 adds pressure for the latter to remain, otherwise 1.22.4's content could all move up a level. -- Cheers, Ralph.
Re: discrepant groff configurations
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 01:28:43PM +, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > (Actually, the existence of /usr/share/groff/current seems a bit odd. > Most packages don't have a symbolic link to support multiple installed > versions and users that want multiple versions of a program installed > can use GNU Stow or similar to maintain the symlinks if their package > manager doesn't provide it.) Really, the weird thing is not so much the existence of the current symlink, as the fact that the directories under $(dataprogramdir) are versioned. The current symlink is an attempt to cope with that so that other bits of software that for some reason need to look at files in tmac/ can do so without having to keep track of the version number; but it's quite possible that it would have been better to abolish the versioned directories. Anyway, groff's build system was more or less completely rewritten between 1.22.3 and 1.22.4 (Bertrand's automake conversion), so that will certainly confound any attempts to compare different distributions if you aren't comparing like version for like. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]
Re: discrepant groff configurations
Hi Doug, > I run groff in windows (cygwin) and linux (redhat). > Groff's appearance in /usr/share is surprisingly > different in the two environments. > > cygwin: > groff > 1.22.4 current site-tmac > doc > groff-1.22.4 > pic.ps > > linux: > groff > 1.22.3 current site-tmac > doc > groff-base > BUG-REPORT > MORE.STUFF > NEWS > PROBLEMS > > Is this a difference between 1.22.3 and 1.22.4 or > between Cygwin and Redhat? I don't know Cygwin, but when that kind of thing varies for groff between different Linux distributions then it's the choices made by the distribution in packaging groff into one or more packages. > In the cygwin variant, the pathname of Eric Raymond's > excellent pic.ps changes with every release of groff. > while there's an unchanging "current" path to groff proper. > Is this the fault of cygwin.org or gnu.org/software/groff? I think /usr/share/groff/current is provided by groff so the lack of a /usr/share/doc/groff-current symlink to access pic.ps is also groff. (Actually, the existence of /usr/share/groff/current seems a bit odd. Most packages don't have a symbolic link to support multiple installed versions and users that want multiple versions of a program installed can use GNU Stow or similar to maintain the symlinks if their package manager doesn't provide it.) > It is too bad that Raymond's piece is not in Redhat, > and not mentioned in MORE-STUFF, which lists groff- > related resources. >From squinting at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/groff/blob/master/f/groff.spec#_468 which is upstream of Red Hat, I think the package groff-doc will add pic.ms; see the ‘%files doc’ on line 468 and following globs. > If the difference is between Cygwin and Redhat, I suppose > they are exploiting configuration options offered by > the groff project. What is the point of these particular > options? We're not talking significant disk space. > But we are talking cognitive dissonance for users of > multiple systems. The Linux distros have different policies over what gets put into what package and where it appears in the filesystem. Sometimes this is an attempt for their whole system be coherent despite software from many authors. Other distros just pass on exactly from each author ships, preferring a lighter touch, and less maintenance. Debian and Fedora derivatives, which covers the majority, are heavy handed in a well meaning way. -- Cheers, Ralph.
discrepant groff configurations
I run groff in windows (cygwin) and linux (redhat). Groff's appearance in /usr/share is surprisingly different in the two environments. cygwin: groff 1.22.4 current site-tmac doc groff-1.22.4 pic.ps linux: groff 1.22.3 current site-tmac doc groff-base BUG-REPORT MORE.STUFF NEWS PROBLEMS Is this a difference between 1.22.3 and 1.22.4 or between Cygwin and Redhat? In the cygwin variant, the pathname of Eric Raymond's excellent pic.ps changes with every release of groff. while there's an unchanging "current" path to groff proper. Is this the fault of cygwin.org or gnu.org/software/groff? It is too bad that Raymond's piece is not in Redhat, and not mentioned in MORE-STUFF, which lists groff- related resources. If the difference is between Cygwin and Redhat, I suppose they are exploiting configuration options offered by the groff project. What is the point of these particular options? We're not talking significant disk space. But we are talking cognitive dissonance for users of multiple systems. Doug
[groff] [mom] documentation typo single-quote inline
There seems to be a typo in mom's documentation: https://schaffter.ca/mom/momdoc/inlines.html#inline-characters-groff It says: Open (left) single-quote\[oq] Close (right) single-quote \[oq] should be imo: Close (right) single-quote \[cq]
Re: Re: [groff] [mom] blockquote indent breaks
> > > ! SyncTex Error : No file? > This error seems to have disappeared miraculously since yesterday. Turns out this error does not come from groff, but from evince which I (I forgot about that) had running as background process since it automatically refreshes when the pdf is regenerated. My bad...
Re: [groff] [mom] blockquote indent breaks
Hi Marcus, > Synctex was installed as a dep to evince (my pdf reader). > $ pacman -Qs synctex > local/evince 3.36.0-1 (gnome) > ... > local/libsynctex 2019.51075-7 > ... > $ pacman -Qi libsynctex |grep "Required By" > Required By : evince Another way to do this is on pacman(1) systems is pactree(1) to show the reverse dependency tree. $ pactree -r groff groff └─man-db $ -- Cheers, Ralph.
Re: Re: [groff] [mom] blockquote indent breaks
On Thu, 26 Mar, 2020, Peter Schaffter wrote: > > ! SyncTex Error : No file? > > No idea what's causing this. 2.4-4 from the tarball works fine at > my end. I don't use synctex. At what point in your toolchain is it > invoked? This error seems to have disappeared miraculously since yesterday. I don't know why. Sorry 'bout that I don't use latex... Synctex was installed as a dep to evince (my pdf reader). $ pacman -Qs synctex local/evince 3.36.0-1 (gnome) ... local/libsynctex 2019.51075-7 ... $ pacman -Qi libsynctex |grep "Required By" Required By : evince > COVID-19 disruptions prevented it @all: stay healthy/stay strong, don't let it get you!!
