At Sun, 1 Mar 2009 15:48:42 +0000, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius
<rmind%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
Subject: Re: groff/-mandoc replacement
>
> There was a very recent conversation about another reason to replace gproff,
> which was to avoid C++ so the userland could be compiled with pcc.
Avoiding C++ for userland, and kicking out a GPL-licensed package would
be very worthwhile goals for NetBSD to achieve.
I think the right/best solution, for NetBSD, would be to import Plan 9's
version of the original troff and related tools, then of course make
sure there's a fully working mdoc(7) package for it.
I also think it's ludicrous to consider trying to replace groff with
something half-backed that only barely attempts to handle just one macro
package's worth of documentation. There are still ms(7), me(7), and
man(7) documents still in NetBSD, and no doubt there are several using
mm(7) that should be imported to complete the existing documentation.
It is also unthinkable to ignore the many current and potential uses of
eqn(1), pic(1), tbl(1), and grap(1) for NetBSD documentation.
Finally I personally hate anything SGML related -- it's pretty much the
most horrendous syntax known to modern computing. :-)
(If I were to be able to replace troff and its related tools entirely,
rewriting all existing documentation in the process, I'd choose lout as
the replacement. It's what I use for everything I don't still use troff
for.)
--
Greg A. Woods
Planix, Inc.
<woods%planix.com@localhost> +1 416 489-5852 http://www.planix.com/
Attachment:
pgpTfcxZNC3JQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature