Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 07:24:09 -0700 From: Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: documenting musl On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 08:47:23 -0400 Kurt H Maier <khm-lists@...ma.in> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 02:35:22PM +0200, Daniel Cegiełka wrote: > > 2012/9/8 Kurt H Maier <khm-lists@...ma.in>: > > > On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 10:44:03AM +0200, Daniel Cegiełka wrote: > > >> btw. documentation - mandoc is a better option than > > >> (old/big/ugly) groff for documentation. > > > > > > None of those links explain why they seem to think it's either > > > groff or roll-your-own, when there are plenty of lightweight roff > > > implementations. Any hints? > > > > hmm... mandoc isn't lightweight? :) > > No, but it's not roff. Yes, I use roff to write regular documents. AFAICT if you want any old-format or portable manpages to work, you may need groff anyhow (unsupported macros make it fallback to groff) > > > > Daniel > > Now you're doing it. There are dozens of other roff implementations, > such as the one that comes with 9base, or the heirloom doctools, etc. > Why does everyone who uses mandoc ignore everything but groff? I'm using heirloom troff myself, and if I write the docs to use *roff & kin, they will work with heirloom troff (though I _don't_ plan to make it specific to heirloom-doctools). Now that may require a little bit of hacking on their mandoc support if you want mandoc format. Several mandoc format pages, such as pcc.1, don't work properly there.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.