On 10/31/22, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2022-10-30T23:41:43-0500, Dave Kemper wrote:
>> I'm less convinced by this -- unless a difficult roadblock stands in
>> the way, I think modern groff ought to work or fail gracefully on an
>> obsolete platform -- but the prior two points are convincing
Hi Alex,
At 2022-10-31T22:19:35+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> I found what seems to be a bug in either tbl(1) or eqn(1).
It was eqn. I could reproduce it with groff 1.22.4 and the issue is
probably very old. Thanks! GNU eqn now has it first regression test.
I filed this as Savannah #63299
Hi Jakub!
On 10/31/22 17:35, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Alejandro Colomar , 2021-10-02 18:45:
Heh! Nice revival.
I was curious why man: and not man://,
What follows foo:// is the authority component (most often the host name); see
RFC 3986 §3.
So man://awk.1 is wrong, unless you put awk.1 in
Hi Branden!
I found what seems to be a bug in either tbl(1) or eqn(1).
After applying the patch from this thread, I see the following issues:
$ make lint-man-groff V=1
LINT (groff)tmp/lint/man2/madvise.2.lint-man.groff.touch
tbl man2/madvise.2 \
| eqn -Tutf8 \
| troff -man -t -M ./etc/grof
* Alejandro Colomar , 2021-10-02 18:45:
I was curious why man: and not man://,
What follows foo:// is the authority component (most often the host
name); see RFC 3986 §3.
So man://awk.1 is wrong, unless you put awk.1 in the DNS somehow. :-P
--
Jakub Wilk
* G. Branden Robinson , 2021-10-02 14:02:
less(1) only developed OSC 8 support in version 566, released about one
year ago. Versions prior to that misinterpreted the OSC 8 escape
sequence and would write parts of it to the terminal window, an
unsightly mess that would be sure to displease users
Hi John,
At 2022-10-31T18:23:25+1100, John Gardner wrote:
> > Perl 5.6.1 is incredibly old (April 2001). I cannot find any
> > evidence of any current distribution supporting it.
>
> IIRC, declaring a program version is recommended practice, as future
> versions of Perl may have different defaul
Hi Dave,
At 2022-10-30T23:41:43-0500, Dave Kemper wrote:
> On 10/30/22, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Perl 5.6.1 is incredibly old (April 2001). I cannot find any
> > evidence of any current distribution supporting it.
>
> I'm less convinced by this -- unless a difficult roadblock stands in
>
>
> Perl 5.6.1 is incredibly old (April 2001). I cannot find any evidence of
> any current distribution supporting it.
IIRC, declaring a program version is recommended practice, as future
versions of Perl may have different defaults w.r.t opt-in behaviours like `use
warnings` and `use strict`. T
