> First, we should all acknowledge that groff's info files are among
> the best of any open-source project (again, there's some irony
> here); [..]
too much honour...
> any alternative documentation project undertaken by members of this
> list should strive to incorporate all of the exhaustive
> documentation in the existing info file, while not making Werner's
> job in maintaining a central document any more difficult. I share
> the doubts some have expressed about the texinfo format, but I would
> hate to see a fork in the documentation of one of the
> best-documented packages ever!
What's really missing is, as already mentioned, a good groff primer!
Larry M., what do you think about working on such a beast?
> Second, quite apart from the ideological objections to texinfo and
> criticisms of the format itself, my real problem is that texinfo is
> a prerequisite for building the CVS groff, and that a TeX
> installation is required for building a pdf of the main
> documentation. [...]
Well, this isn't an argument. Developers are expected to use more
packages than Joe User.
Werner
_______________________________________________
Groff mailing list
Groff@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
