if the packages become part of 'groff' why not add a 'make docs' and generate them on request ? and other option is adding this to a 'make check' so it can double as output test for the compiled system.
providing dcos in roff only is bad because people that start using groff may have no idea how to generate the required formats. ans they never read any documentation :) re, wh Bernd Warken wrote: >> Von: Ralph Corderoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> I think it's still worth providing the PostScript files because they may >> not have a system where they can get things working sufficiently to >> produce them, despite a README. Further, it's more hassle and they may >> just want a quick peruse without the overhead of building, etc. > > If they can use PostScript they must have a working computer. Moreover, > the ps-files in the examples are very disgusting. They hide the roff source > code; a ps-subdirectory would do. Maybe `html' would be better anyway. > > Bernd Warken > > > > _______________________________________________ > Groff mailing list > Groff@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff > > _______________________________________________ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
