[bug #60655] want option for output drivers to suppress comments

URL: Summary: want option for output drivers to suppress comments Project: GNU troff Submitted by: gbranden Submitted on: Sat 22 May 2021 09:38:00 AM UTC Category: Device - others

[bug #60655] want option for output drivers to suppress comments

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #60655 (project groff): Mmmm, how about -C for the CreationDate and -G for the Creator ("Groff") instead. The functions are distinct and groff's release cycle is long enough to make a real difference. ___ Reply to

[bug #60655] want option for output drivers to suppress comments

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #60655 (project groff): commit 2a1f6a6c686b009748d8b58dc900958b67263f10 Author: G. Branden Robinson Date: Sat May 22 20:46:48 2021 +1000 [grohtml]: Implement -C and -G options. Add -C and -G options to grohtml output driver, to suppress the output of

[bug #60655] want option for output drivers to suppress comments

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #60655 (project groff): You have not mentioned why you want to suppress CreationDate nor what are the other related comments. ___ Reply to this item at: __

[bug #60655] want option for output drivers to suppress comments

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #60655 (project groff): There is already a method for preventing "build artifacts" in grops and gropdf, what more would this add? ___ Reply to this item at: __

[bug #60655] want option for output drivers to suppress comments

Update of bug #60655 (project groff): Status:None => Need Info ___ Follow-up Comment #5: [comment #4 comment #4:] > There is already a method for preventing "build artifacts" in grops and

[bug #60655] want option for output drivers to suppress comments

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #60655 (project groff): My question is why do you want to suppress CreationDate, since this previously came up about reproducible builds and a solution was found. I don't see a need for a general user needing to do this, so why a flag? _

[bug #60655] want option for output drivers to suppress comments

Follow-up Comment #7, bug #60655 (project groff): Speaking as a general user, I periodically need to verify that some change I've made to some roff code that _shouldn't_ change the PostScript output does not, in fact, change the PostScript output. The most straightforward way to do this is *diff*

[bug #60655] want option for output drivers to suppress comments

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #60655 (project groff): One way of checking whether your change to roff code will alter the output is to diff the -Z output of both versions. This will easily show what page the change occurs on so you can use your slow method on just the page identified by the -Z diff. I

[bug #60655] want option for output drivers to suppress comments

Follow-up Comment #9, bug #60655 (project groff): [comment #8 comment #8:] > I think there was a message on here recently which highlighted > how few letters were left for flags, You're likely thinking of the discussion in bug #60571, which catalogued the remaining letters available for new in-do

[bug #60655] want option for output drivers to suppress comments

Follow-up Comment #10, bug #60655 (project groff): You don't mention whether you found my suggestion for grepping the groff intermediate output produced by -Z was helpful or not. After all this is the input read by grops and you are not testing whether postscript has changed, but whether your chan

[bug #60655] want option for output drivers to suppress comments

Follow-up Comment #11, bug #60655 (project groff): Hi Deri, I'm trying to keep the focus on what general users might find useful. For my own part, I already have filters to massage .ps code, so the new options would be a very small gain for me, allowing me to replace what are now shell functions

[bug #60655] want option for output drivers to suppress comments

Follow-up Comment #12, bug #60655 (project groff): Hi Dave, I don't see much fragility in what you are using now, the postscript language "build artifacts" are unlikely to change in any meaningful way which will stop your current workflow from continuing to work. Perhaps a general user who has a

[bug #60655] want option for output drivers to suppress comments

Follow-up Comment #13, bug #60655 (project groff): [comment #12 comment #12:] > I don't see much fragility in what you are using now, True, there's not much, but pretty clearly more than solving the problem at its source and avoiding the need for the workarounds altogether. The more moving parts