> > >I guess we should install this document source in some
> > >example directory, and fix up the reference appropriately,
> > >for use in the generated PDF document. Do you have any
> > >preference as to where that should be?
> >
> > $(EXAMPLEFILES).
>
> By this, I presume you m
Keith,
according to Nelson's log files which I now have analyzed completely,
many platforms refuse to run the pdfroff script.
One platform fails with
./pdfroff: 561: Syntax error: "}" unexpected (expecting "fi")
This is definitely a bug of the platform's shell (either tcsh or ksh),
but shou
> What about precompiled binaries for Win32 as well?
This is a good idea.
> Should I distribute such previews, say:--
>
> groff-1.19.2-pre-20050613-src.tar.gz
> groff-1.19.2-pre-20050613-bin.tar.gz
> groff-1.19.2-pre-20050613-doc.tar.gz
>
> or should I rather hold off f
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 08:46:01AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> :
> I think that the offending line is
>
> MATCH="$MATCH`echo --$OPT | $GREP "^$OPTNAME"`"
>
> I suspect that the
>
> "...`..."..."`"
>
> combination causes the problem.
The `command` shell escape has been known to b
Mike Bianchi wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 08:46:01AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> :
>> I think that the offending line is
>>
>> MATCH="$MATCH`echo --$OPT | $GREP "^$OPTNAME"`"
>>
>> I suspect that the
>>
>> "...`..."..."`"
>>
>> combination causes the problem.
>
> The
Keith,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 02:55:24PM +0100, Keith MARSHALL wrote:
> :
> I beg to differ here. While POSIX defines the $( ... ) syntax for
> embedded command invocation, we have to deal with many legacy systems
> which are not POSIX compliant. As you say, Mike, the syntax used in
> pdf
> I agree with all you say, up to the idea that #!/bin/sh is
> appropriate.
IMO, it is entirely appropriate.
> Whoever writes a shell writes against one of the non-universal models
> because there is no universal model. By documenting which model is in
> use, we know which man page to read whe
On 16-Jun-05 Keith MARSHALL wrote:
> Mike Bianchi wrote:
>> [...]
>> So what is the practical fall back? Must shell scripts be written to
>> some (undocumented) lowest common denominator of all existing (and
>> past and future?) shells? If so, then our problem line should be
>> rewritten:
>>
ISO-8859-15 is ISO-8859-1 enhanced by the Euro symbol. So both are latin1.
The following patch corrects nroff.sh to use them both.
## patch for /src/roff/nroff/
--- nroff.sh.orig 2005-05-18 09:03:07.0 +0200
+++ nroff.sh2005-06-16 18:44:31.0 +0200
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 09:04:08AM -0400, M Bianchi wrote:
> I also strongly recommend _against_ using #!/bin/sh as the first
> line of shell scripts.
And what exactly do you recommend for a script that should run on dozen
different systems?
> There is no shell called "sh" anymore. It is alway
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 02:55:24PM +0100, Keith MARSHALL wrote:
> I beg to differ here. While POSIX defines the $( ... ) syntax for
> embedded command invocation, we have to deal with many legacy systems
> which are not POSIX compliant. As you say, Mike, the syntax used in
> pdfroff does have por
Pic bug that started in 1.19.x series is still not fixed.
Gpresent .PAUSE request, in combination with pic for loop, triggers a
vertical move which screws up a picture.
See the attached file for the example pic code.
Make a picture. Then
add
.copy "animate.pic"
after .PS
and instead of ev
I had to apply the attached patch to build groff-1.19.2.pre-20050527 on
OpenBSD 3.7. Keith uses $(RM) without ever defining it. I checked
through the whole groff source tree and it's not defined anywhere.
Thus those lines were failing trying essentially to execute the argument
to $(RM). This sol
On Thursday 16 June 2005 7:46 am, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> MATCH="$MATCH`echo --$OPT | $GREP "^$OPTNAME"`"
>
> I suspect that the
>
> "...`..."..."`"
>
> combination causes the problem.
Here's the patch to fix this -- I hope. I've also incorporated Bernd's
NULLDEV typo correction, and Zvezdan
14 matches
Mail list logo
