[Groff] Re: Fw: post-grohtml core dump

Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > From: "Y T" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: post-grohtml core dump > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:21:55 -0800 > > --- CUT HERE --- > .LP > This is a test > .IP X > Line number 2 > .LP > .

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

Larry Kollar wrote: Larry K., have you found a new CVS host for the UTP meanwhile? Have you finally announced the UTP on the various lists? Maybe we can find volunteers more easily if more people know of its existence... No, and no. Larry McVoy has offered Bitkeeper, and I'm going to take him u

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

> Indeed, as Robert points out, texinfo 4.8 is now required; but also, > IIRC, it had been previously been noted that 4.7 should *not* be > used, because of a bug -- before the step up to 4.8, you had to use > 4.6. Your use of 4.7 was always doomed to failure. It has been shown that groff.texinf

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

> > I ran into the same problem, before noticing in the ChangeLog that > > texinfo *4.8* is now required. > > Indeed, as Robert points out, texinfo 4.8 is now required; but also, > IIRC, it had been previously been noted that 4.7 should *not* be > used, because of a bug -- before the step up to 4.

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:51:48AM -0500, Alejandro L?pez-Valencia wrote: > IMO, CVS and Subversion are better choices. Have you read > ? That's a religious argument, not a technical one. Show me one example of someone saying that CVS or Subversion are better techn

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

Larry McVoy wrote: On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:51:48AM -0500, Alejandro L?pez-Valencia wrote: IMO, CVS and Subversion are better choices. Have you read ? That's a religious argument, not a technical one. Show me one example of someone saying that CVS or Subve

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:50:39PM -0500, Alejandro L?pez-Valencia wrote: > I never said CVS or > Subverson were better technical choices, you just imposed your fears and > biases upon my words. I merely said *better choices*. Yes, you say that but you don't say why. As far as I can tell this i

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

Larry McVoy wrote: On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:50:39PM -0500, Alejandro L?pez-Valencia wrote: I never said CVS or Subverson were better technical choices, you just imposed your fears and biases upon my words. I merely said *better choices*. Yes, you say that but you don't say why. As far

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Alejandro L?pez-Valencia wrote: > >>Subverson were better technical choices, you just imposed your fears and > >>biases upon my words. I merely said *better choices*. > > > >Yes, you say that but you don't say why. As far as I can tell this is just > >FUD

[Groff] Re: post-grohtml core dump

> > This is a test > > .IP X > > Line number 2 > > .LP > > .ce 1 > > Line number 3 > > again, thanks for the report, here is a patch to fix the bug: Applied, thanks. Werner ___ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listin

[Groff] bitkeeper vs. CVS vs. subversion

Dear groffers, I ask you to stop arguing for and against your favourite source code revision management system. You've done your recommendations, and it is now up to Larry K. to choose the system which fits his needs best. Werner ___ Groff mai

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

Larry McVoy wrote: [blah, blah] 1. Where is the open source client *source code* at the website? I can't find it. http://www.bitmover.com/bk-client.shar And no indication of it in your website whatsoever. 2. Where is the open source license? In the source files. It's basically a BSD

Re: [Groff] ubuntu, groff and utf-8

Dear Werner, On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, you wrote: > > > I want a library of artificial > > > characters which combines base characters and accents to composite > > > characters, [...] > > > > Such substuitution, if done properly, has to be font-dependent and > > resorted to only if the font lacks prec

Re: [Groff] ubuntu, groff and utf-8

> as far as I understand, the situation with character composition > in groff is as follows [...] Thanks for your analysis, to which I agree. > 3) Metrics for some decent PostScript or TrueType fonts are to > be included in groff distribution. I think this will eventually come. The main ques

Re: [Groff] Updated patch: m.tmac

> I've rewritten the m.tmac patch to reflect changes in www.tmac. No > functional changes beyond the previous patch; it simply marks > headings for grohtml and disables headers & footers. Applied, thanks! Werner ___ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu