[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: groff inquiry

Daniel Quinlan writes:

>>> I think including these links is a *bad* idea for a number of reasons:
>>>  .  Programs are not equivalent and, in some cases, behave radically
>>>     different, from non-GNU troff packages.

Matt Welsh wrote:

>> Some programs just look for "troff" and don't care what they find.
>> If you have any instances of this, consider using links, but otherwise
>> don't include them.

Charlie Brady said:

> Groff has a -C flag for compatibility for nroff - it stops it
> complaining about various things. Rather than a link, you'll need a
> small shell script for nroff:
> #! /bin/sh
> groff -C $*

For backward compatibility, there is the `gnroff' command which is
intended to be used in lieu of nroff (if you are afraid of using the
`groff' front-end).  All the "-C" really does is shuts off the new
commands that have been added (and that's asking for problems!).  In
fact, if you look at the gnroff manual page:

     gnroff - emulate nroff command with groff

Matt's comments pretty much matched up with my own feelings and that
is how I have packaged it.  I have not renamed/linked the commands,
but I set the macro packages to use the standard names ("ms" & "mm"
rather than "mgs" and "mgm").


Daniel Quinlan  <quinlan@spectrum.cs.bucknell.edu>

Reply to: