[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #65724 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #63827 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #64966] [troff] make the underline font environment-specific

Update of bug #64966 (group groff): Summary: [troff]: make the underline font environment-specific => [troff] make the underline font environment-specific ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #65936] [grohtml] litters working directory with 0-length image files

Update of bug #65936 (group groff): Summary: [grohtml] grohtml litters working directory with 0-length image files => [grohtml] litters working directory with 0-length image files ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #65710] [preconv] require disambiguation of U+00A0 on input

Update of bug #65710 (group groff): Status:None => Rejected Assigned to:None => gbranden Open/Closed:Open => Closed __

[bug #65954] [troff] next-generation alignment and adjustment control

URL: Summary: [troff] next-generation alignment and adjustment control Group: GNU roff Submitter: gbranden Submitted: Fri 05 Jul 2024 08:08:43 AM UTC Category: Core

[bug #65955] [troff] enable "input" warning category by default and add one-off alert

URL: Summary: [troff] enable "input" warning category by default and add one-off alert Group: GNU roff Submitter: gbranden Submitted: Fri 05 Jul 2024 08:15:02 AM UTC Category:

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #65954 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #65955 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65936] [grohtml] litters working directory with 0-length image files

Update of bug #65936 (group groff): Status:None => Need Info ___ Follow-up Comment #3: I can't reproduce this with stock _groff_ 1.23.0 or Git HEAD. $ ~/groff-stable/bin/groff --version

[bug #65936] [grohtml] litters working directory with 0-length image files

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #65936 (group groff): Something to note; I carelessly rendered Git HEAD's version of "ms.ms" in comment #3. When I render 1.23.0's "ms.ms" with 1.23.0, I do get _some_ complaints from _pnmcrop_ and _pnmtopng_, and _some_ zero-length files, but not 59 of them. $ ~/groff

[bug #65936] [grohtml] litters working directory with 0-length image files

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #65936 (group groff): [comment #3 comment #3:] > Is there any way you can get your hands on a different version of netpbm to try it? I downgraded netpbm from 10.86.42-1 to 10.86.40-1 which is the oldest version in my Arch package cache. But the problem remains the same.

[bug #65955] [troff] enable "input" warning category by default and add one-off alert

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #65955 (group groff): I raised a concern about discontinuing native ISO 8859-1 support on the email list (http://lists.gnu.org/r/groff/2024-05/msg00030.html). There were no further replies in the thread. ___ Repl

[bug #64043] [ms] mixing formatting requests with macro calls produces different unspecified behavior with groff than with AT&T troff

Update of bug #64043 (group groff): Summary: mixing formatting requests with macro calls produces different unspecified behavior with groff than with AT&T troff => [ms] mixing formatting requests with macro calls produces different unspecified behavior with groff than with AT&T tr

[bug #64043] [ms] mixing formatting requests with macro calls produces different unspecified behavior with groff than with AT&T troff

Follow-up Comment #10, bug #64043 (group groff): Additional discussion on the email list can be found in the threads starting at: * http://lists.gnu.org/r/groff/2023-04/msg00074.html (the start of a thread linked in the original submission) * http://lists.gnu.org/r/groff/2023-04/msg00137.html * ht

[bug #64043] [ms] mixing formatting requests with macro calls produces different unspecified behavior with groff than with AT&T troff

Follow-up Comment #11, bug #64043 (group groff): I wasn't too impressed with this report, which attempted to use the Groff Mission Statement as a bludgeon for the reporter to get his way. Backward compatibility with existing documents and usage will remain a top priority, as will avoiding featur

[bug #64043] [ms] mixing formatting requests with macro calls produces different unspecified behavior with groff than with AT&T troff

Follow-up Comment #12, bug #64043 (group groff): [comment #9 comment #9:] > Branden, was this intended to address the above-quoted documentation update you offered to make? Yes. ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #64043] [ms] mixing formatting requests with macro calls produces different unspecified behavior with groff than with AT&T troff

Follow-up Comment #13, bug #64043 (group groff): Sounds good. While the bug has been Rejected for over a year, the discussion seemed have been left in limbo, so I wanted to make sure everything that might have been resolved has been resolved. Only one other potentially loose thread that I see: o

[bug #64043] [ms] mixing formatting requests with macro calls produces different unspecified behavior with groff than with AT&T troff

Follow-up Comment #14, bug #64043 (group groff): [comment #13 comment #13:] > Sounds good. While the bug has been Rejected for over a year, the discussion seemed have been left in limbo, so I wanted to make sure everything that might have been resolved has been resolved. Fair. > Only one other