On Wed, Aug 27, 2014, Pierre-Jean wrote:
> Ralph Corderoy wrote:
>
> > I'd still say give it a try. Perhaps where it is, say, Plan 9-troff
> > specific, mention that in the subject. We've lost the benefits of
> > Usenet readers like trn, but some of us might have mailer's with `kill'
> > files.
Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> I'd still say give it a try. Perhaps where it is, say, Plan 9-troff
> specific, mention that in the subject. We've lost the benefits of
> Usenet readers like trn, but some of us might have mailer's with `kill'
> files. :-)
Well, I agree with that: let's try, and take an
Hi Pierre-Jean,
> This was, in fact, our first opinion. But we finally thought it would
> be annoying for the groff community to receive mails about technical
> issues which does not concern groff.
That might happen if the volume gets high, but we're a polite bunch and
can point that out if it ha
Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> Would you consider the groff list suitable if the list's owners and
> general population of subscribers were happy? Seems a shame to fragment
> the small, fledgling community.
This was, in fact, our first opinion. But we finally thought
it would be annoying for the groff
>> It appears to Carsten and I that there's place to some coordination
>> even if we are working on different projects, with different goals,
>> and using different troff implementations.
>
> Would you consider the groff list suitable if the list's owners and
> general population of subscribers w
Hello,
- Original Nachricht
Von: Ingo Schwarze
> I can't speak for the list's owners, obviously...
> ... but as a member of the population, i heartily agree with Ralph's
> perspective.
> ... and how few yelled "stop this off-topic crap" the rash spectator
> might already jump to c
> Von: "Tadziu Hoffmann"
>
> > In the not yet public version of `runoff.7', there is a table
> > consisting of several pages. But in groff, it was impossible
> > to use a single table; I had to split each page as a table of
> > its own (both in nroff and troff).
>
> But that is a problem of the
Hi,
Ralph Corderoy wrote on Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:59:07PM +0100:
> Pierre-Jean wrote:
>> It appears to Carsten and I that there's place to some coordination
>> even if we are working on different projects, with different goals,
>> and using different troff implementations.
> Would you consider
On 26-Aug-2014 17:33:07 Peter Schaffter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014, Carsten Kunze wrote:
>> For discussing heirloom troff (and other non-groff specific macro
>> packages and tools) a mailing list will be set up to not misuse
>> the groff list and annoy groff-only list members (further ;).
>
> P
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014, Carsten Kunze wrote:
> For discussing heirloom troff (and other non-groff specific macro
> packages and tools) a mailing list will be set up to not misuse
> the groff list and annoy groff-only list members (further ;).
Please let us know as soon as the list is set up. I (and
On 26/08/14 16:38, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
>> In the not yet public version of `runoff.7', there is a table
>> consisting of several pages. But in groff, it was impossible
>> to use a single table; I had to split each page as a table of
>> its own (both in nroff and troff).
>
> But that is a probl
Hi Pierre-Jean,
> It appears to Carsten and I that there's place to some coordination
> even if we are working on different projects, with different goals,
> and using different troff implementations.
Would you consider the groff list suitable if the list's owners and
general population of subscr
> In the not yet public version of `runoff.7', there is a table
> consisting of several pages. But in groff, it was impossible
> to use a single table; I had to split each page as a table of
> its own (both in nroff and troff).
But that is a problem of the man macros, not groff in general.
Norm
Hello groffers !
Carsten Kunze wrote:
> For discussing heirloom troff (and other non-groff
> specific macro packages and tools) a mailing list will be
> set up to not misuse the groff list and annoy groff-only
> list members (further ;).
I'm currently setting up that list: it should be
availab
> Von: "Carsten Kunze"
>
> If you have an example for a long table which does not reliable work I would
> be interested to look into this.
>
In the not yet public version of `runoff.7', there is a table consisting of
several pages.
But in groff, it was impossible to use a single table; I had t
> Glad to hear that the heirloom doctools are still being supported with
> bugfixes. Thanks for this Carsten!
I have tried to contact Gunnar many times in several ways without success.
Fixing the bugs has become inevitable now...
> The heirloom refer implementation with lookbib and sortbib is mo
Glad to hear that the heirloom doctools are still being supported with
bugfixes. Thanks for this Carsten!
I like being able to use groff pretty much everywhere to produce good
looking documents and appreciate that the program is still being developed
by an active community. However, all my syst
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014, Carsten Kunze wrote:
> Something not so OT: I did many test with groff, DWB, Heirloom and
> Plan9 (only the ditroff functionality). For any of these groff
> had equal or better results and is the only implementation without
> bugs (regarding these tests).
Yea for us!
Cheers
Hello,
Since I know this list has some members who also use the Heirloom Documentation
Tools ...
There are some bugs in this troff implementaion which made them nearly unusable
at least for me. Since there seems to be no chance that Gunnar Ritter (the
former maintainer) will work again on this
19 matches
Mail list logo
