On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 18:45:12 +0000, Iain Hibbert wrote: > On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Robert Elz wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 17:24:55 +0300 > > From: Valery Ushakov <u...@stderr.spb.ru> > > Message-ID: <20180316142455.gf3...@pony.stderr.spb.ru> > > > > | mdoc.samples(7) is a very handy reference. > > > > For me that is the same as mdoc(7) (a copy of the same > > man page) - is that what is intended (I see mdoc.samples(7) has > > 2 links - I did not chase down and find what the other is, except > > to know it is not mdoc(7) which is a copy) > > This reminds me actually; I noticed a while ago that mdoc(7) is actually a > copy (as you suggest) of groff_mdoc(7) whereas the mdoc.samples(7) Valery > suggests is a link to groff_mdoc(7) > > but as far as I know we don't use groff for our mandoc anymore.. we also > have mandoc_mdoc(7) which I think would be the correct manpage for the > mandoc(1) implementation we use. Is it time to switch these around?
We don't use groff for man(1). I do use groff for postscript output quite a bit (mandoc postscript output is subpar). Actually, since mdoc.samples(7) is BSD licensed I'd prefer that we ship it even if we drop groff. -uwe
