On Wednesday, 2 October 2024 19:29:26 BST G. Branden Robinson wrote: > To accept such a restriction is to surrender groff to stagnation. While > I am aware of at least one person for whom that situation is a > preference, I claim that the same can be achieved by never upgrading > groff from the version one finds satisfactory. In the meantime, those > who _don't_ want groff to stagnate can benefit from its development.
I agree stagnation is not good, but it is undesirable if changes break existing documents. An example is the utp document which a lot of people on this list put together. Neither the original 1.0, producing postscript, nor 1.1, producing a pdf, now build properly, from https://github.com/larrykollar/ Unix-Text-Processing. Various problems occur using current git groff, from extra blank pages, text which was set as mono spaced appearing as Times-Roman, pdf bookmarks jumping to the wrong page, input line numbers appearing in the output (1.0 postscript only - also affects 1.23.0 - Ok in 1.22.4). Are all of these changes in behaviour really fixes to bugs in groff? Cheers Deri
