Subject: Re: Compiling NetBSD with another compiler.
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Anders Magnusson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/06/2007 10:43:12
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 07:59:59PM +0200, Anders Magnusson wrote:
>> Actually, I fixed the old nroff/troff back in 2002 so that it supported
>> most of the
>> groff extensions (except .while). I have the source code if someone
>> wants it,
>> unfortunately I based it on 4.4 encumbered, but it should be trivial to
>> be constructive
>> with diff to remove those additions.
> The real problem is that there's no convenient way to use traditional roff
> (as opposed to ditroff) to generate PostScript output, or output for the
> other printers supported by our in-tree groff. Adobe had a dreadful hack
> that translated C/A/T typesetter language to PostScript but it's definitely
> not open-source and it's just the wrong approach besides.
It isn't especially difficult to change the orig troff output to
I took a small look at it when I was dealing with it and realized that
be simple. Writing dpost is more job though :-)
But, how difficult can it be? :-)
> Unfortunately I think if you investigate the licensing on ditroff you will
> find that it is a quagmire (done as a separate project _not_ under any of
> the standard Unix licenses at AT&T, then with commercial rights sold to an
> outside entity). What would be needed to really replace groff without
> losing functionality we actually use (e.g. man pages -> postscript) would
> be a new ditroff implementation, in C, and a PostScript backend like grops.