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 <email@example.com>