Subject: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-2-5-2:49
From: "Linux Activists" <[email-masked]>
To: "Linux-Activists" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 09:00:22 +0200

Topics:
	 Re: Man Project

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Eric Scharff)
Subject: Re: Man Project
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 04:19:53 +0200

>From: [email-masked] (Michael Haardt)
>Subject: Re: Re: Man Project
>Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 17:23:55 +0200
>
>For now groff will be used, of course.  Further, a roff -> texinfo
>filter is needed to convert current linux and other manual pages.  For
>now means, I have no idea yet when the big change (tm) will happen.
>However it means, that cryptic roff code and non-standard macros should
>be avoided.  That filter will not disappear after, it will stay useful
>for years and years I think.  Btw: most manual pages *are* clean, so I
>don't expect too much problems in this area.
[...]
>Agreed.  Personally, I still like roff very much and I would hate to see
>it disappear, but then again ... I am not going to document the C
>library, so obviously I can't say much.

        Yes, we should continue to use groff for our man work for now.  In
fact, the decision of the GNU team to document their section 3 in texinfo
format does not change our plans.  Groff and texinfo man pages need not be
mutually exclusive.  Before the FSF completes its work, we should have a
man (and xman) that can handle *roff and texinfo pages.  Included with this
would be a info reader that does not need emacs underneath it.
        For now, I think we should remain writing groff pages.  We can
always change that in the future.

-Eric Scharff
 [email-masked]

------------------------------

End of DOC Digest
*****************
-------