[bug #63133] [pdfroff] throws warning on any document if -ww given

[Keith Marshall]

Follow-up Comment #10, bug #63133 (project groff):

[comment #9 comment #9:]
> [comment #8 comment #8:]
> > The underlying issue, with pdfroff, was fixed by
> >
[https://osdn.net/users/keith/pf/groff-pdfmark/scm/commits/5d88cef1407d5bb625a1c23a888976f6efa80fab
commit 5d88cef1407d5bb625a1c23a888976f6efa80fab]:

> > 2023-02-24  Keith Marshall  
> > 
> > Do not emit redundant 'pdfhref Z' records.
> > 
> > * pdfroff.sh [grohtml-info] (pdfhref Z): Adapt awk script, to emit...
> > (pdfhref Z 0 0 0): ...this conditionally, only if at least one prior
> > record has been emitted; delete unconditional emission, which caused
> > the anomaly reported as groff issue #63133.


> > 
> > Okay to close?
> 
> Hi Keith,
> 
> I'd prefer not to close it here since it still affects groff's
> pdfroff and therefore likely the 1.23.0 release.
> 
> Unless we cherry-pick the fix...

Okay.  You might consider just copying my latest pdfroff.sh, accompanying
pdfroff.1.man, and everything in my tmac/ subtree, *except* s.tmac, (which is
just a verbatim copy of yours, at the time I forked groff-pdfmark, and yours
has evolved since then), but I'll leave it to your discretion.

> BTW, are you sure about that commit link?

Oops! It looks like I copied, and pasted the wrong link; it should have been
[https://osdn.net/users/keith/pf/groff-pdfmark/scm/commits/69c99bee3ce93ddaae89026d61cea9bc75ecf453
commit #69c99bee]; (I should have noticed that the hash wasn't as I
expected).

> It seems to go to this change:

> Clean up Z-shell initialization logic.
> 
> * pdfroff.sh [ZSH_VERSION]: Tidy initialization code for...
> (NULLCMD, emulate sh): ...these; bring it more into alignment with
> contemporary GNU autoconf usage.


Indeed.  That's the immediate parent of the intended commit.

> In any case I'll take responsibility for it, on the assumption I'll
> be able to cherry-pick, and mark it "Confirmed" for want of a status
> that means "fix available elsewhere".

Okay; I'll leave it with you.


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/

[bug #64013] [ms] EQ macro ignores second argument if first empty

[G. Branden Robinson]

URL:
  

 Summary: [ms] EQ macro ignores second argument if first empty
   Group: GNU roff
   Submitter: gbranden
   Submitted: Thu 06 Apr 2023 05:25:31 PM UTC
Category: Macro ms
Severity: 3 - Normal
  Item Group: Incorrect behaviour
  Status: Confirmed
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: gbranden
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: None


___

Follow-up Comments:


---
Date: Thu 06 Apr 2023 05:25:31 PM UTC By: G. Branden Robinson 
Given this input:


.LP
Here comes an equation.
.EQ "" 1.1
x + y = z
.EN
.LP
All done.


* DWB 3.3 ms does not typeset the equation number.
* Heirloom Doctools ms does.
* groff 1.22.4 does not.
* groff Git does not.

I think the correct thing to do is follow Heirloom's behavior here.  For many,
many years, _groff_ ms's `EQ` macro was not even documented as accepting a
second argument, but the implementation did so.  AT&T ms did so going all the
way back to 1975, but it used a tricky method of argument parsing that I think
might have malfunctioned if the document author had the temerity to label
their equation "L", "I", or "C".

This doesn't seem urgent to fix (for _groff_ 1.23.0 I mean) since it can be
worked around by explicitly giving "C" as the first argument to the `EQ`
macro.







___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/

[bug #64013] [ms] EQ macro ignores second argument if first empty

[G. Branden Robinson]

Update of bug #64013 (project groff):

  Status:   Confirmed => Postponed  
 Planned Release:None => 1.24.0 

___

Follow-up Comment #1:

Postponing; low-hanging fruit for _groff_ 1.24.


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/

[bug #62541] in-tree documents should make(1) depend on macro files they explicitly use

[G. Branden Robinson]

Update of bug #62541 (project groff):

  Status:   Confirmed => In Progress


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/