Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

On Wed, 26 May 2010 16:54:35 +1000 Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Tuesday, 25 May 2010 at 16:16:10 -0700, Bakul Shah wrote: > > > > If you must kick groff out, why not "port" plan9 troff which > > now does unicode, has 27 macro packages including ms, weighs > > in at about 10K lines of C code w

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

On Tuesday, 25 May 2010 at 16:16:10 -0700, Bakul Shah wrote: > > If you must kick groff out, why not "port" plan9 troff which > now does unicode, has 27 macro packages including ms, weighs > in at about 10K lines of C code written by Joe Ossanna, Brian > Kernighan, Ken Thompson, Jaap Akkerhuis & ot

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

On Wed, 26 May 2010 01:21:20 +0300 Eitan Adler wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > On 5/25/2010 9:52 AM, Julian Elischer wrote: > >> > >> On 5/25/10 8:33 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: > > No. Do not remove groff or associated tools from /usr/src ! > Roff ha

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

On 26/05/10 10:21, Eitan Adler wrote: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Matthew Jacob wrote: On 5/25/2010 9:52 AM, Julian Elischer wrote: On 5/25/10 8:33 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: No. Do not remove groff or associated tools from /usr/src ! Roff has been in Unix /usr/src since '77 or earlier. A

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

On Wednesday, 26 May 2010 at 1:21:20 +0300, Eitan Adler wrote: >> On 5/25/2010 9:52 AM, Julian Elischer wrote: >>> BSD has always  been ab;e to produce it's documentation as part of its >>> build >>> >>> Please keep this true. > > This is what mdocml will be for. I never advocated removing the > u

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

On Monday, 24 May 2010 at 22:43:37 +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 09:17:01PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: >> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:13:07PM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote: >>> I welcome this change, but groff is used for much more than manpages. >>> What happens to pic

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

On Monday, 24 May 2010 at 21:17:01 +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:13:07PM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote: > >> Is the thinking that groff has only been in base to support manpages? >> If so, this project makes sense. But even so, some clarification of the >> intent is n

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Matthew Jacob wrote: > On 5/25/2010 9:52 AM, Julian Elischer wrote: >> >> On 5/25/10 8:33 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: No. Do not remove groff or associated tools from /usr/src ! Roff has been in Unix /usr/src since '77 or earlier. A lot of people use

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

On 5/25/2010 9:52 AM, Julian Elischer wrote: On 5/25/10 8:33 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: No. Do not remove groff or associated tools from /usr/src ! Roff has been in Unix /usr/src since '77 or earlier. A lot of people use tools from that descendancy as production tools. So? If it isn't a very commo

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

On 5/25/10 8:33 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: No. Do not remove groff or associated tools from /usr/src ! Roff has been in Unix /usr/src since '77 or earlier. A lot of people use tools from that descendancy as production tools. So? If it isn't a very commonly used tool and isn't necessary for 99% of c

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

Re. half baked proposal to delete groff: If you want to play, play with Linux, which has no tradition of what to expect. BSD by contrast is real Unix, those who've been in Unix business a few decades you know what real Unix is. More than just the toolchain to support make world. Look at Bell bl

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

> No. Do not remove groff or associated tools from /usr/src ! > Roff has been in Unix /usr/src since '77 or earlier. > A lot of people use tools from that descendancy as production tools. So? If it isn't a very commonly used tool and isn't necessary for 99% of cases I don't seem the harm of removi

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:06:58PM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > > The use of (g)roff for anything but man pages is practically non-existent. > > False. Its a production tool used here. > http://berklix.com./associates/ > http://www.berklix.com/~jhs/

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > The use of (g)roff for anything but man pages is practically non-existent. False. Its a production tool used here. http://berklix.com./associates/ http://www.berklix.com/~jhs/cv/#card ( Try .PS card back X3 size All business letters, bills, busine

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

> I'll be working on replacing groff with mdocml (mandoc) in the system base No. Do not remove groff or associated tools from /usr/src ! Roff has been in Unix /usr/src since '77 or earlier. A lot of people use tools from that descendancy as production tools. However if you just mean "I'll

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:43:37PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote: > Would it support ps/dvi output ? Postscript output is the major goal of a GSoC project. Joerg ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freeb

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 09:17:01PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:13:07PM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote: > > I welcome this change, but groff is used for much more than manpages. > > What happens to pic, tbl, and the other troff-related "little > > languages"? How can

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

On Mon 24 May 2010 at 12:17:01 PDT Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:13:07PM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote: I welcome this change, but groff is used for much more than manpages. What happens to pic, tbl, and the other troff-related "little languages"? How can you say mdocml is

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:13:07PM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote: > I welcome this change, but groff is used for much more than manpages. > What happens to pic, tbl, and the other troff-related "little > languages"? How can you say mdocml is "completely replacing" groff if > it doesn't support those

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

On Mon 24 May 2010 at 00:08:30 PDT Ben Fiedler wrote: I'll be working on replacing groff with mdocml (mandoc) in the system base (and yes, I am aware of Gordon's work on a man replacement). In addition, I will be creating or (more likely) porting BSD-is

Re: GSoC: BSD text tools

On Mon, 24.05.2010 at 00:08:30 -0700, Ben Fiedler wrote: > I'll be working on replacing groff with mdocml (mandoc) in the system base > (and yes, I am aware of Gordon's work on a man > replacement). > In addition, I will be creating or (more likely) porti

GSoC: BSD text tools

I'll be working on replacing groff with mdocml (mandoc) in the system base (and yes, I am aware of Gordon's work on a man replacement). In addition, I will be creating or (more likely) porting BSD-ish licensed feature-complete replacements for: diff, sort