Subject: Re: what *roff macro set to use for writing documentation?
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bernd Salbrechter <email@example.com>
Date: 08/23/1999 23:02:53
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Ross Harvey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote
> > From: Lou Glassy <email@example.com>
> > dear all,
> > I'd like to take the 'Package.txt' documentation for
> > the NetBSD package system, and transmogrify it into
> > a *roff document (which with other magic, could be
> > converted into TeX, HTML, etc)...
> > Question: what *roff macro package would you recommend
> > to use for this sort of documentation?
> > It looks like some of the docs under /usr/share/doc/psd
> > use the me package. Is this the recommended one to use
> > for new documentation?
> No, it should be done in -mdoc (see `man 7 mdoc', and `man 7 mdoc.samples')
> for a variety of reasons.
I would say that this sort of documentations need a "table of contents"
and benefit from "decimal numbered sections", which -me and -ms provide,
but -mdoc not. Or have I missed some thing in -mdoc?
> * very nice looking output
For man-pages, but for longer documents (see above)?
> * we have the -mdoc2html macros in-tree
A few days ago I saw an article in <news://gnu.groff.bug> about an html
back end and that someone starting up to maintain groff. (If someone is
interest in the thread, I have saved at least the interesting parts.)
> But troff-ing Packages.txt is, in general, an excellent idea, and actually
As would it be for INSTALL. Both are long documents, which will need a
table of contents with correct page numbers.
Have a nice day