Subject: Re: Compiling NetBSD with another compiler.
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Thorsten Glaser <email@example.com>
Date: 09/27/2007 12:55:52
Joerg Sonnenberger dixit:
>On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 01:23:58PM +0200, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
>> * this is only C, no C++, right?
>Yes. C++ is a mess to implement. Note that I think the only piece of C++
>in base is groff.
Well, GNU groff is replaceable.
>Another thing to buy from SCO now :-)
Putting something like this one:
into base and making the full GNU groff suite a package was the
thing I thought of as sensible. Benefit would be the ability to
upgrade GNU groff more often (without syspkgs, even), less GPL=E2=80=99d
crap and especially no C++ crap in the base system. Another thing
from SCO (that code stems from 4.4BSD-alpha from TUHS).
The code=C2=B9 is a mess, and there are bugs (sometimes, a line ending
is missing, rarely on i386, more often so on sparc), but =E2=80=93 except
for terminfo(5) which has too many diversions for tbl(1) =E2=80=93 it=E2=80=
building all of our manpages rather finely.
Just in case someone cares =E2=98=BA Theo would be interested in it too
if there were someone to clean up the code and make it legible.
I=E2=80=99m not too keen on that, though=E2=80=A6
=C2=B9) I have ditroff sources flying around here, but they don=E2=80=99t b=
either a copyright notice or a licence; mtimes are pre-Berne
convention, but as a non-US citizen I guess I still can=E2=80=99t use
it, and BWK didn=E2=80=99t respond to my enquiting email, so I stuck
with nroff (and ignored troff, no C/A/T typesetter here =E2=98=BB).
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy the=
If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
existence.=09=09-- Coywolf Qi Hunt