Hi Pierre-Jean,
This was, in fact, our first opinion. But we finally thought it would
be annoying for the groff community to receive mails about technical
issues which does not concern groff.
That might happen if the volume gets high, but we're a polite bunch and
can point that out if it
Ralph Corderoy wrote:
I'd still say give it a try. Perhaps where it is, say, Plan 9-troff
specific, mention that in the subject. We've lost the benefits of
Usenet readers like trn, but some of us might have mailer's with `kill'
files. :-)
Well, I agree with that: let's try, and take
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014, Pierre-Jean wrote:
Ralph Corderoy wrote:
I'd still say give it a try. Perhaps where it is, say, Plan 9-troff
specific, mention that in the subject. We've lost the benefits of
Usenet readers like trn, but some of us might have mailer's with `kill'
files. :-)
I'm
Hello groffers !
Carsten Kunze carsten.ku...@arcor.de wrote:
For discussing heirloom troff (and other non-groff
specific macro packages and tools) a mailing list will be
set up to not misuse the groff list and annoy groff-only
list members (further ;).
I'm currently setting up that list:
In the not yet public version of `runoff.7', there is a table
consisting of several pages. But in groff, it was impossible
to use a single table; I had to split each page as a table of
its own (both in nroff and troff).
But that is a problem of the man macros, not groff in general.
Hi Pierre-Jean,
It appears to Carsten and I that there's place to some coordination
even if we are working on different projects, with different goals,
and using different troff implementations.
Would you consider the groff list suitable if the list's owners and
general population of
On 26/08/14 16:38, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
In the not yet public version of `runoff.7', there is a table
consisting of several pages. But in groff, it was impossible
to use a single table; I had to split each page as a table of
its own (both in nroff and troff).
But that is a problem of the
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014, Carsten Kunze wrote:
For discussing heirloom troff (and other non-groff specific macro
packages and tools) a mailing list will be set up to not misuse
the groff list and annoy groff-only list members (further ;).
Please let us know as soon as the list is set up. I (and
Hi,
Ralph Corderoy wrote on Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:59:07PM +0100:
Pierre-Jean wrote:
It appears to Carsten and I that there's place to some coordination
even if we are working on different projects, with different goals,
and using different troff implementations.
Would you consider the
Von: Tadziu Hoffmann hoffm...@usm.uni-muenchen.de
In the not yet public version of `runoff.7', there is a table
consisting of several pages. But in groff, it was impossible
to use a single table; I had to split each page as a table of
its own (both in nroff and troff).
But that is a
Hello,
- Original Nachricht
Von: Ingo Schwarze schwa...@usta.de
I can't speak for the list's owners, obviously...
... but as a member of the population, i heartily agree with Ralph's
perspective.
... and how few yelled stop this off-topic crap the rash spectator
might already
It appears to Carsten and I that there's place to some coordination
even if we are working on different projects, with different goals,
and using different troff implementations.
Would you consider the groff list suitable if the list's owners and
general population of subscribers were
Ralph Corderoy wrote:
Would you consider the groff list suitable if the list's owners and
general population of subscribers were happy? Seems a shame to fragment
the small, fledgling community.
This was, in fact, our first opinion. But we finally thought
it would be annoying for the groff
Hello,
Since I know this list has some members who also use the Heirloom Documentation
Tools ...
There are some bugs in this troff implementaion which made them nearly unusable
at least for me. Since there seems to be no chance that Gunnar Ritter (the
former maintainer) will work again on
14 matches
Mail list logo
