Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

On 4/4/23, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > At 2023-04-04T16:26:30+, Michał Kruszewski wrote: >> pdfroff has .pdfinfo, how to achieve the same with groff? > > groff's pdf output driver supports it as well, with the same syntax I > think; but to my surprise it is not doc

Re: A file suffix for troff's output. (Was: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4)

Hi Steve, On 4/10/23 15:45, Steve Izma wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 10:03:34AM +0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote: >> Subject: A file suffix for troff's output. (Was: pdfroff in groff >> 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4) >> >> troff chapter.tr >c

Re: A file suffix for troff's output. (Was: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4)

On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 10:03:34AM +0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > Subject: A file suffix for troff's output. (Was: pdfroff in groff > 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4) > > troff chapter.tr >chapter.set > grops chapter.set >chapter.ps > > Short, si

Re: A file suffix for troff's output. (Was: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4)

Quoth DJ Chase: $ file chapter.set chapter.set: ditroff output text for PostScript, ASCII text Wouldn’t “.ditroff” be more appropriate? file tells you that chapter.set contains the ouput of ditroff, not ditroff itself. So no, both .set (which I find agreeable) and .trout are

Re: A file suffix for troff's output. (Was: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4)

On Mon Apr 10, 2023 at 5:03 AM EDT, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > troff lays out its input. > The input has been placed on the page. > It is typeset. > It is set. > > troff chapter.tr >chapter.set $ file chapter.set chapter.set: ditroff output text for PostScript, ASCII text Wouldn’

A file suffix for troff's output. (Was: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4)

Hi Branden, > Perhaps you can think of some alternative names for distinguishing > formatter output that we expect non-groff output drivers to be able to > cope with from those that exercise the extension. troff lays out its input. The input has been placed on the page. It is typeset. It is set.

Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

Hi John, At 2023-04-08T23:46:52+1000, John Gardner wrote: > > I know I will be mightily tempted to encourage others to adopt the > > practice, in large part because "device-independent [gt]roff] > > output" is far too long to type or speak repeatedly. > > I've always just called it "ditroff" (*"d

Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

> > Yes. Though it contains device-dependent troff output. :-) > Aye, but most folks would find that less confusing than a format named after a fish … ;-) > The ‘dit’ suffix is probably what I've seen the most. > Same, although I personally prefer to use

Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

Hi John, > I've always just called it "ditroff" (*"device-independent troff > [output]"*), with *.dit and *.ditroff being my typical choice of file > extensions. The ‘dit’ suffix is probably what I've seen the most. > I'm aware that it's a reappropriation of an obsolete name for all > post-Osann

Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

Hi Branden, > I know I will be mightily tempted to encourage others to adopt the > practice, in large part because "device-independent [gt]roff] output" is > far too long to type or speak repeatedly. I've always just called it "ditroff" (*"device-independent troff [output]"*), with *.dit and *.

Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023, G. Branden Robinson wrote: At 2023-04-06T10:39:13+, Lennart Jablonka wrote: Then comes the noteworthy bit: Concatenate the troff output of all those separate documents and feed it all to the postprocessor at once, as in troff -ms mainmatter.ms >mainmatter.trout

Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

At 2023-04-06T10:39:13+, Lennart Jablonka wrote: > Then comes the noteworthy bit: Concatenate the troff output of all > those separate documents and feed it all to the postprocessor at once, > as in > > troff -ms mainmatter.ms >mainmatter.trout 2>toc > { troff frontmatter && troff

Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

[self-reply to correct an error] I had a missing word thinko here that changed the meaning of a sentence. At 2023-04-06T20:24:13-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Further, on a cover page, should initial spacing be measured from the > first vee on the page (as it would be in a "raw" roff documen

Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

Hi Michał, At 2023-04-06T19:41:44+, Michał Kruszewski wrote: > So it is now explained why .bp is broken. I am attaching yet another > reproducer. This time there is a problem with the .sp before > Abstract. In 1.23.0.rc3 this .sp is simply ignored, while in 1.22.4 > it is correctly applied.

Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

So it is now explained why .bp is broken. I am attaching yet another reproducer. This time there is a problem with the .sp before Abstract. In 1.23.0.rc3 this .sp is simply ignored, while in 1.22.4 it is correctly applied. Best regards, Michał Kruszewski Sent with Proton Mail secure email. --

Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

Quoth Michał Kruszewski: I would like to have simple structure: custom cover page -> ToC -> custom page -> text. The easiest way to do all these things is to split the document in multiple ones. Have one troff document for the cover page. There is little reason for it to use ms. Have one d

Re: an opinionated history of *roff macro packages (was: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4)

Branden, On Thu, 6 Apr 2023, G. Branden Robinson wrote: At 2023-04-05T18:13:16+, Micha? Kruszewski wrote: I have once evaluated ms, mm and mom. I have come from the Latex world after being sick of its bloat. I was looking for something simple. I know some differences between ms, mm an

an opinionated history of *roff macro packages (was: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4)

;d had my improvements to groff's documentation when he first encountered it, but after observing how much work it has required, he'd still have taken the route he did. Certainly I find the examples of mom's output that we ship with groff to be impressive. And I think other people wi

Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

At 2023-04-05T13:04:45-0500, Dave Kemper wrote: > The missing page break you're seeing here is due to a combination of > factors: > - Immediately before the .bp, you call the .DE macro > - The .DE macro was recently modified to invoke the .ns request. > - When no-space mode (.ns) is in effect, a

Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

Hi Peter, I have once evaluated ms, mm and mom. I have come from the Latex world after being sick of its bloat. I was looking for something simple. I know some differences between ms, mm and mom, but I do not really understand why people did not want to cooperate to create a single macro package

Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

On 4/5/23, Michał Kruszewski wrote: > There are so many differences between pdfroff 1.22.4 <-> groff 1.22.4 and > between groff 1.22.4 <-> 1.23.0rc3 that I think I am lost. 1.23 is definitely a quantum leap forward from 1.22.4. There's a lot to digest! > Secondly

Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

Michał -- On Wed, Apr 05, 2023, Micha Kruszewski wrote: > I would like to have simple structure: custom cover page -> ToC -> > custom page -> text. No matter how I try always some kind of mess > is generated. I am attaching my "favorite" output so far. If you haven't invested too much in ms, yo

Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

There are so many differences between pdfroff 1.22.4 <-> groff 1.22.4 and between groff 1.22.4 <-> 1.23.0rc3 that I think I am lost. I have started doing small changes. Firstly I have switched from pdfroff 1.22.4 to groff 1.22.4. The layout of the document did not change in case of

Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

implementation of these features from "spdf.tmac". * tmac/s.tmac (XH-UPDATE-TOC): Update comments. (XN-REPLACEMENT): Do it. > With pdfroff heading numbers were included in the ToC automatically > when using .XN. Yes, that was a decision of Keith's when he first

Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

> For this, you need the "pdfpagename" macro. Where do you get all of this knowledge from? I use man groff, man groff_ms, man gropdf, google and I do not come across all of these. Using .XN with groff does not include heading numbers in the ToC. With pdfroff heading numbers were in

Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

000, Michał Kruszewski wrote: > > > I use pdfroff only because of 2 reasons. If you know how to do the > > same with groff I would even prefer to use groff instead: > > > Sure, maybe I can help. > > > 1. ToC. I haven't managed to generate ToC with groff at the

Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

I use pdfroff only because of 2 reasons. If you know how to do the same with groff I would even prefer to use groff instead: 1. ToC. I haven't managed to generate ToC with groff at the beginning of the document. I do not ask for a lot. Just print me the info about header pages (stdout or

pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

> compiled with 1.22.4 is even available in .pdf format in the > repository. At a quick look I think the problems involve the use of pdfroff. If I try to format your document for PostScript using groff 1.22.4, I get lots of problems as well. Worse ones, in fact. I see that the header margi

Re: Help needed with pdfroff and suppression nodes

Thanks again to Tadziu and Keith. The fix was a revert and a one-liner. https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/commit/?id=bfcfdc670ac7d964dce5d846b9367a998d0f7e46 https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/commit/?id=991aa9daf607765fecb92f9476055d057b3d36e2 Regards, Branden signature.asc

Re: Help needed with pdfroff and suppression nodes

> > was hard to see since it didn't break the build. The table of contents > > was not getting relocated in pdfmark.pdf. The only evidence of this (if > > you didn't so something crazy like view the file) was a stray line in > > the build: > > > > pdf

Re: Help needed with pdfroff and suppression nodes

At 2021-07-29T21:56:34+0200, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote: > > But the wheels turning here mystify me. What is causing the > > `image_filename` (formerly `last_image_filename`) to go > > uninitialized, why only in very specific circumstances? > > pdfmark uses the suppression mechanism bounding box outpu

Re: Help needed with pdfroff and suppression nodes

it didn't break the build. The table of contents > was not getting relocated in pdfmark.pdf. The only evidence of this (if > you didn't so something crazy like view the file) was a stray line in > the build: > > pdfroff-option:set toc_relocation=enabled > > This is e

Re: Help needed with pdfroff and suppression nodes

> But the wheels turning here mystify me. What is causing the > `image_filename` (formerly `last_image_filename`) to go > uninitialized, why only in very specific circumstances? pdfmark uses the suppression mechanism bounding box output to find the anchor positions, but no images are involved.

Help needed with pdfroff and suppression nodes

couple of days ago, but one that was hard to see since it didn't break the build. The table of contents was not getting relocated in pdfmark.pdf. The only evidence of this (if you didn't so something crazy like view the file) was a stray line in the build: pdfroff-option:set toc_relocat

Re: pdfroff and tables of contents

ss essential infrastructure, so that the two may interoperate seamlessly ... infrastructure which would NOT be provided by simply invoking "groff -ms -mpdfmark ...". It would be entirely feasible to provide similar -mpdfmark bindings for other macro packages than -ms; (say -mmpdf, for -mm,

Re: Bugs submitted for improving documentation of fonts provided; pdfmark/pdfroff(1) documentation; and integrating install-font.sh

; > than I can shrink it, but I do burn items off occasionally. > > * bug #60929: Improve documentation of which fonts groff provides by default > https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?60929 > > * bug #60927: improve pdfmark documentation, including pdfroff(1) > http

Bugs submitted for improving documentation of fonts provided; pdfmark/pdfroff(1) documentation; and integrating install-font.sh

bug #60929: Improve documentation of which fonts groff provides by default https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?60929 * bug #60927: improve pdfmark documentation, including pdfroff(1) https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?60927 * bug #60930: Integrate Peter Schaffter's font installer s

Re: pdfroff and tables of contents

On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 04:48:03 +1000 "G. Branden Robinson" wrote: > XN is not a part of any _ms_ implementation I'm aware of, not even > groff's. It does not appear in 4.2BSD ms or Version 10 Research Unix, > either. > > In the groff system, XN is defined in spdf.tmac Why not just fold spdf.tmac

Re: pdfroff and tables of contents

At 2021-07-15T12:34:40-0400, T. Kurt Bond wrote: > The pdfroff man page says: > > > It transparently handles the mechanics of multiple pass groff > > processing, when applied to suitably marked up groff source files, > > such that tables of contents and body text are forma

pdfroff and tables of contents

The pdfroff man page says: It transparently handles the mechanics of multiple pass groff processing, when applied to suitably marked up groff source files, such that tables of contents and body text are formatted separately, and are subsequently combined in the correct order, for final

Re: [Groff] help debug pdfmark, pdfroff, PSPIC document

>On 26/02/16 15:56, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: >> I've a document that is built with pdfroff. >> I use mspdf macro package and also PSPIC. >> >> This results in a document with 3 extra >> pages after the cover page, where all PostScript >> files, mention

Re: [Groff] help debug pdfmark, pdfroff, PSPIC document

On 26/02/16 15:56, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > I've a document that is built with pdfroff. > I use mspdf macro package and also PSPIC. > > This results in a document with 3 extra > pages after the cover page, where all PostScript > files, mentioned in PSPIC request

[Groff] help debug pdfmark, pdfroff, PSPIC document

I've a document that is built with pdfroff. I use mspdf macro package and also PSPIC. This results in a document with 3 extra pages after the cover page, where all PostScript files, mentioned in PSPIC requests are shown: https://sourceforge.net/p/coarrays/svn/HEAD/tree/head/doc/doc.pdf A

Re: [Groff] pdfroff: does spdf work well with RP?

>> How can I make the title page be the >> very first page in the final PDF file? > >Use the '--stylesheet' option to pdfroff; see the manpage for details, >and the build procedure for pdfmark.pdf, in the groff source distribution. ok, got it. I have to hack my own

Re: [Groff] pdfroff: does spdf work well with RP?

On 29/01/16 12:50, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > With pdfroff I get > > macro error: RP is not allowed after the first page has started > > even when RP is used before TL, AU, etc. > > If I don't use RP, then the title info appears > after TOC and references, which i

Re: [Groff] pdfroff 1.22 calls groff 1.19 -help

Anton Shterenlikht wrote: |>This script will prefer environment variables GROFF_BIN_DIR then |>GROFF_BIN_PATH (why is all that, btw.? ph!) falling back to |>PATH as a last option only. So doing |> |> $ ( GROFF_BIN_PATH=/usr/local/bin/; $GROFF_BIN_PATH/pdfroff ) |>

[Groff] pdfroff: does spdf work well with RP?

With pdfroff I get macro error: RP is not allowed after the first page has started even when RP is used before TL, AU, etc. If I don't use RP, then the title info appears after TOC and references, which is not great. How can I make the title page be the very first page in the final PDF

Re: [Groff] pdfroff 1.22 calls groff 1.19 -help

>This script will prefer environment variables GROFF_BIN_DIR then >GROFF_BIN_PATH (why is all that, btw.? ph!) falling back to >PATH as a last option only. So doing > > $ ( GROFF_BIN_PATH=/usr/local/bin/; $GROFF_BIN_PATH/pdfroff ) > >should do it, no? Not seldom the q

Re: [Groff] pdfroff 1.22 calls groff 1.19 -help

Anton Shterenlikht wrote: |This is on FreeBSD 10.2-RELEASE-p9, |with base OS groff, /usr/bin/groff at 1.19.2, |and groff-1.22.2_3 istalled via packages |under /usr/local/bin. | |When I try to run pdfroff 1.22, it pulls |groff 1.19: | |$ /usr/local/bin/pdfroff --version |GNU pdfroff

[Groff] pdfroff 1.22 calls groff 1.19 -help

This is on FreeBSD 10.2-RELEASE-p9, with base OS groff, /usr/bin/groff at 1.19.2, and groff-1.22.2_3 istalled via packages under /usr/local/bin. When I try to run pdfroff 1.22, it pulls groff 1.19: $ /usr/local/bin/pdfroff --version GNU pdfroff (groff) version 1.22.2 GNU groff version 1.19.2

Re: [Groff] pdfroff - links always go to the top of the page

behaving like this just for the pdfroff output. Looking through the PDF contents is not shedding any light for me. ... rather than to the page that the target is on? I do seem to recall seeing similar behaviour with an older version of Evince, or maybe with kpdf, (in the Ubuntu-8.04 era); Ad

Re: [Groff] pdfroff - links always go to the top of the page

.XN -N CONTACTINFORMATION -- CONTACT INFORMATION > .LP > > ... then the link is like this... > > .pdfhref L -D CONTACTINFORMATION -- Contact Information You don't say, but I'm guessing that you're using the sample -mspdf, which accompanies the pdfroff/pdfmark distribut

[Groff] pdfroff - links always go to the top of the page

.pdfhref L -D CONTACTINFORMATION -- Contact Information When hovering the mouse over the link a little "Go To Page 18" shows up. And the link links us to the relevant page. But I'd like the link to go to the actual heading. Is this possible with pdfmark/pdfroff? Louis

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

> > Better to use psselect (from the psutils suite) to re-order > > TOCs in PostScript documents; for pdf documents, pdftk. > > While this necessarily requires users to write a pipeline, > > it's "the right tool," [...] Not necessarily; see below. > The only place it can be done properly is in t

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

> This thread has mentioned Kernighan's troff tutorial > http://cm.bell-labs.com/7thEdMan/index.html > Of course it lacks the modest, but very helpful, > groff extensions, but it's a great base document. There's also a useful tutorial on writing a simple general-purpose macro package at the end o

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

Doug McIlroy: > This thread has mentioned Kernighan's troff tuto- > rial Here's where to get it: > > http://cm.bell-labs.com/7thEdMan/index.html > > Of course it lacks the modest, but very helpful, > groff extensions, but it'sa great base document. > I would think Brian would welcome an u

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

Ingo Schwarze: > > From my own experince, the existing packages are > > much stronger coupled with Groff and cannot be > > used without good understanding of Groff itself. > > I didn't try mom though. > > Maybe you didn't try mdoc(7), either - or only > considered general purpose packages

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

Clarke Echols: > I was working on a troff/nroff tutorial at HP back > in 1988, but got pulled off of it to handle the > HP-UX Reference (man pages) for four years. The > version that got produced was a cut-down version > for nroff only, and it never hit the bookstore > market like the

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

This thread has mentioned Kernighan's troff tutorial Here's where to get it: http://cm.bell-labs.com/7thEdMan/index.html Of course it lacks the modest, but very helpful, groff extensions, but it'sa great base document. I would think Brian would welcome an upgrade. He's b...@princeton.edu. Doug McI

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

Hi Anton, Anton Shepelev wrote on Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 04:10:26AM +0400: > Mike Bianchi: >> [...] To do even the simplest document requires >> much-too-much expertise for the rank beginner. >> >> What is missing is a Front Door that leads you >> gently into the Castle, teaches you t

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

Hi Peter, > Terminal copy, via -Tascii or -Tutf8, works with relatively > straightforward documents, but no attempt has been made to support it > fully. That's better than I thought... Given the inherent limitations one can't expect much more. I'll try and move reading about mom up the "list".

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

Peter Schaffter: > The "I haven't used/checked out mom" thing has > come up a couple of times in this thread (with > respect to introducing groff to novices), which is > funny since mom already implements most of the > proposals being made, viz: > [...] In my case this was due to lac

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

Ralph -- On Sat, Jul 30, 2011, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > > In other words, mom's already the "front door": a conceptually easy, > > flexible set of macros that's perfect for beginners, serves the needs > > of the more experienced, and leads naturally to greater exploration of > > groff itself. > >

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011, Mike Bianchi wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:22:53PM -0400, Peter Schaffter wrote: > > The "I haven't used/checked out mom" thing has come up a couple of > > times in this thread (with respect to introducing groff to novices), > > which is funny since mom already implement

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:22:53PM -0400, Peter Schaffter wrote: > The "I haven't used/checked out mom" thing has come up a couple of > times in this thread (with respect to introducing groff to novices), > which is funny since mom already implements most of the proposals > being made, viz: >

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

Hi Peter, > In other words, mom's already the "front door": a conceptually easy, > flexible set of macros that's perfect for beginners, serves the needs > of the more experienced, and leads naturally to greater exploration of > groff itself. It does sound mighty fine and I've not looked at it clo

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > simple package like ms (or perhaps mom; I've not used it) The "I haven't used/checked out mom" thing has come up a couple of times in this thread (with respect to introducing groff to novices), which is funny since mom already implements most of the pr

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

sed to > adjust paragraphs beautifully. Whether you regard multiple pass [nt]roff to be standard practice, or not, is irrelevant in the context of a discussion focussed, as the subject indicates, on *pdfroff*. Certainly, pdfroff uses troff as its layout engine, but the usage is *always* multipl

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

Hi Mike, > As a *roff user since the mid-1970s I am all too aware that to be good > at this you have to know and _understand_ a lot of details about the > document models (as represented by the different macro collections: > man, mm, mom, ms ...) and the fundamental commands, registers, etc. > To

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

On 07/29/2011 06:10 PM, Anton Shepelev wrote: Mike Bianchi: [...] To do even the simplest document requires much-too-much expertise for the rank beginner. What is missing is a Front Door that leads you gently into the Castle, teaches you the way through the rooms, closets and pa

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

Mike Bianchi: > [...] To do even the simplest document requires > much-too-much expertise for the rank beginner. > > What is missing is a Front Door that leads you > gently into the Castle, teaches you the way > through the rooms, closets and pantries, so you > can live comforta

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

Ralph Corderoy: > Is it non-standard? I thought the normal way was > to set up two passes, or more strictly a loop > until everything settles down into place, as this > is how TeX does it too IIRC. Not that TeX's way > of doing anything necessarily makes it right. ;-) I meant, non-s

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

Mike Bianchi wrote: > What is missing is a Front Door that leads you gently into the Castle, teaches > you the way through the rooms, closets and pantries, so you can live > comfortably there with what is present. Then (and only then) should you be > led > down into the basement and shown how t

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011, Mike Bianchi wrote: > I worry that *roff is an old technology loved only by old people. > It won't survive much longer if it isn't loved by people much > younger than me. ... > That way one would not have to memorize quite as much trivial > detail to understand the document s

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 05:37:41PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > : > > The other day I was thinking of creating, as a first step, a set of > > overlay macros for things like groff_mm (my macro package of choice) > > to ease the burden of learning and understanding it: > > > > .mm_Abs

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

> As a *roff user since the mid-1970s I am all too aware that to be > good at this you have to know and _understand_ a lot of details > about the document models (as represented by the different macro > collections: man, mm, mom, ms ...) and the fundamental commands, > registers, etc. To do even

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

Fair warning. This started as a short "I agree" note, but ... On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 04:12:40PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > >> My user opinion is that letting a postprocessor change the > >> structure of a document is confusing. I don't like pdfroff fo

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

>> My user opinion is that letting a postprocessor change the >> structure of a document is confusing. I don't like pdfroff for >> this reason. In my humble opinion, writing the table of content in >> the begining of a document is a job for a troff macro. &g

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

Hi Anton, > But this would require the somewhat non-standard way of using troff in > two passes. Is it non-standard? I thought the normal way was to set up two passes, or more strictly a loop until everything settles down into place, as this is how TeX does it too IIRC. Not that TeX's way of do

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

Pierre-Jean: > My user opinion is that letting a postprocessor > change the structure of a document is confusing. I > don't like pdfroff for this reason. In my humble > opinion, writing the table of content in the > begining of a document is a job for a troff ma

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

On Thursday 28 Jul 2011 21:21:33 Peter Schaffter wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > > Would it be better to leave the re-ordering to external utilities, e.g. > > the pdftk package > > > > http://www.pdflabs.com/tools/pdftk-the-pdf-toolkit/ > > > > on the basis of do one sm

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > Would it be better to leave the re-ordering to external utilities, e.g. > the pdftk package > > http://www.pdflabs.com/tools/pdftk-the-pdf-toolkit/ > > on the basis of do one small thing and do it well? This is essentially what I concluded when w

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

> pages in a non-linear fashion. > Hello alls, My user opinion is that letting a postprocessor change the structure of a document is confusing. I don't like pdfroff for this reason. In my humble opinion, writing the table of content in the begining of a document is a job for a troff mac

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

On Thursday 28 Jul 2011 18:02:32 Ralph Corderoy wrote: > Hi Deri, > > > In a pdf every page is an object and the page order is given in an > > array called "kids" which is an attribute of the "pages" object. So to > > reorder the pages in a pdf is simply a case of reordering this array > > before

Re: [Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

Hi Deri, > In a pdf every page is an object and the page order is given in an > array called "kids" which is an attribute of the "pages" object. So to > reorder the pages in a pdf is simply a case of reordering this array > before it is written to the file. Currently I just push each new page > on

[Groff] gropdf and pdfroff

pdfroff is a very clever and useful utility in groff and I'd appreciate advice on how best to integrate it into gropdf. Currently gropdf includes its own pdfmark macros which are intended as a drop in replacement for pdfmark.tmac, in fact most of the macros are based on Keith Marshall&#

[Groff] Re: [oss-security] CVE id request: groff (pdfroff)

t; > I have some comments on "the first bug" and on groff's temporary file > handling in general: > > On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 03:48:17PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote: > > First one: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=538330 > > pdfroff tool of

Re: [Groff] gropdf driver (was: pdfroff produces two copies)

thank you, and just a short confirmation that, indeed, now it works seemingly perfect for me. all the best joerg On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:11:50 +0200, Deri James wrote: On Wednesday 05 August 2009 11:30:50 joerg van den hoff wrote: Warning: An error occurred while reading an XR

Re: [Groff] gropdf driver (was: pdfroff produces two copies)

On Wednesday 05 August 2009 11:30:50 joerg van den hoff wrote: > Warning: An error occurred while reading an XREF table. > The file has been damaged. This may have been caused > by a problem while converting or transfering the file. > Ghostscript will attempt t

Re: [Groff] gropdf driver (was: pdfroff produces two copies)

On Wednesday 05 August 2009 11:30:50 joerg van den hoff wrote: > just a short feedback: > > 1.) > thanks! > > 2.) > in a first test with > > groff 1.19.3 > perl v5.8.8 > macosX > > this seems to work more or less correctly. > but with a small text sample the generated pdf was about a factor of > 10

Re: [Groff] gropdf driver (was: pdfroff produces two copies)

motivation for using pdfroff instead of plain groff -Tps is that ghostscript (and all the document viewers based on it) produces (IMO) ugly font output when viewing PostScript files in X, whereas poppler produces nice output for PDF. I guess I'll go back to piping the output of groff into ps2p

Re: [Groff] pdfroff produces two copies

On Tuesday 04 August 2009 16:17:35 brian m. carlson wrote: > My main motivation for using pdfroff instead of plain groff -Tps > is that ghostscript (and all the document viewers based on it) > produces (IMO) ugly font output when viewing PostScript files in > X, whereas poppler p

[Groff] Re: gropdf driver (was: pdfroff produces two copies)

On Tuesday 04 August 2009 19:58:04 Werner LEMBERG wrote: > [Deri, I hope it's OK with you that I cite from your private email to > me.] > Fine. > > Some weeks ago Deri James sent me a first implementation of a gropdf > driver; I've uploaded it temporarily to > > http://groff.ffii.org/groff/gro

[Groff] gropdf driver (was: pdfroff produces two copies)

[Deri, I hope it's OK with you that I cite from your private email to me.] > My main motivation for using pdfroff instead of plain groff -Tps is > that ghostscript (and all the document viewers based on it) produces > (IMO) ugly font output when viewing PostScript files in X, whe

Re: [Groff] pdfroff produces two copies

On Tuesday 04 August 2009 16:17:35 brian m. carlson wrote: > > BTW, pdfroff is designed to work in conjunction with > > pdfmark.tmac; omitting that seems rather unusual. > > Okay.  I read the list, so I was aware that it was intended to > make using the pdfmark package easie

Re: [Groff] pdfroff produces two copies

On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:16:46AM +0100, Keith Marshall wrote: > It is working as intended. It's a bit kludgy, I know, but for the > time being, if you didn't set it up with a TOC section, *you* have > to tell pdfroff that there is no such section to collate, by add

Re: [Groff] pdfroff produces two copies

On Tuesday 04 August 2009 00:31:23 brian m. carlson wrote: > > pdfroff test1.tr >test1.pdf > > acroread test1.pdf > > > > > > Two copies of the document are contained in test1.pdf > > Yes, I discovered this the other day.  It's Debian bug 538326:

Re: [Groff] pdfroff produces two copies

On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:57:20AM -0500, Blake McBride wrote: > If I take a plain troff input file and execute: > > pdfroff test1.tr >test1.pdf > acroread test1.pdf > > > Two copies of the document are contained in test1.pdf Yes, I discovered this the other day. It&#x

[Groff] pdfroff produces two copies

If I take a plain troff input file and execute: pdfroff test1.tr >test1.pdf acroread test1.pdf Two copies of the document are contained in test1.pdf

Re: [Groff] pdfroff doubles the output

> pdfroff incorporates a rather gruesome hack to collate tables > of contents, such as those emitted by the ms .TC macro, from > the end to the beginning of the document; effectively, it > emits the document twice, capturing the body text in the first > pass, and the TOC in t

  1   2   >