Re: [Groff] Groff Version in Debian and [K]ubuntu

[brian m. carlson]

[Take note: Debian bug CC'd]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 02:13:20PM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > However, it is truly frustrating for all concerned when The Debian
> > Way turns out to be the wrong way because, as you are aware, The
> > Debian Way does not concede the possibility of error in itself. :-)
>
> Well, they've solved a particular problem, and the current groff can't
> replace this particular need so I can understand that they don't want
> to upgrade.  Do complain more to them: maybe someone at Debian gets
> interested enough (as Bruno Haible was) to add proper CJK support
> based on Unicode.

I'm happy to (try to) add kinsoku shori handling for Debian[0], if Colin 
Watson will tell me what version he wants to update to (1.19.2 or CVS; 
the latter is my preference because of UTF-8 input).  If he doesn't 
say anything, I'm going to assume that CVS groff is acceptable.

Maybe I don't understand the problem with width handling, but it seems 
like you get this for free with Unicode, which is another reason that I 
think CVS groff would be better.

Do note that Ubuntu has probably not updated to a newer groff because 
they probably don't need it, and it would be a regression to CJK support 
(which they need) if they did.  Note that this is just speculation; I 
don't actually know what Ubuntu's needs are, since I only use Debian.

[0] To make Werner's life easier, I'm happy to disclaim copyright on 
those changes, using the standard FSF form if necessary, should I 
produce usable work.

--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only
a typesetting engine: http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc/code/thwack
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature