DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2007-06
DragonFly BSD
DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2007-06
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: C--

To: Chris Turner <c.turner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Sascha Wildner <saw@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:52:34 +0200

Chris Turner wrote:
Simon corecode Schubert wrote:
However, there won't be any C++ in the list of things to do.  The only thing
which uses C++ in DragonFly is groff, and I would be happier without this.

was just thinking about this issue - any thoughts about:


Well, I looked into this and the problem seems to get our mdoc working with heirloom-doctools. The package itself comes with the "old" mdoc macros which lack certain features our manual pages need. Those are in the "new" mdoc which we have and which depends on certain groff-specific features, as it seems.

There is a groff compatibility mode (add -mg to the command line) in the heirloom troff but despite me trying for some time, I couldn't get it to render our manpages cleanly.

We could, of course, revert to the old mdoc macros which would mean that we'd have to adjust our manpages to not use the features of the new macros. It could certainly be done, but I fear that it will be a hassle to maintain (given that we import manpages from the other BSDs regularly and would have to adjust them too etc.). It could be done I think, although I'm not sure if I wanted to do it. :)

OpenBSD seems to use the old macros (with some enhancements), while NetBSD and FreeBSD use the new macros. MirOS, by the way, seems to have the "best" implementation of the old macros (i.e., theirs gave the fewest warnings).

So... I'm kinda unsure here if the perspective of being able to remove C++ from the build justifies reverting to the old mdoc macros. What do the rest of you think?



[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]