[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [tz] Doubts about a typo fix

From: Russ Allbery
Subject: Re: [tz] Doubts about a typo fix
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2022 15:33:21 -0800
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)

"G. Branden Robinson" <> writes:

> It's my lucky day!  I've been meaning to buttonhole you for quite some
> time regarding my man(7) reforms and pod2man's output.

I just made another major release, so on the plus side my brain is fully
up to speed with the source, but on the minus side, I'm also a little
tired of working on it.  :)  But, anyway, do tell!

I have some very old mail about better compatibility with the output for
mandoc's HTML conversion sitting around somewhere that I need to respond
to as well.

The standard problem is that I'm still trying to stick as much as possible
to my mission of producing portable *roff, but testing on anything other
than recent Debian with groff is tedious and annoying, so I mostly try not
to change things unless there's an obvious bug.

> For what it's worth, groff and Heirloom doctools nroff don't print
> "something else" in bold (this is true even in Heirloom's default, _not_
> groff compatibility, mode), and DWB 3.3 nroff does.

Yes, I think this bug is specific to Solaris, although it was still
present in Solaris 11.

> Any other fonts, a document needs to test for and be programmed
> defensively regarding.[3]  (It's okay to give up with ".ab".)

Pod::Man uses B, I, CW, CB, and CI only.  (To be honest, part of me is
very tempted to drop the C* typefaces because they're quite annoying to
deal with and the cause of a bunch of bugs, and I'm dubious enough people
still use troff to make it worth the effort, but apparently the HTML
converters may use them and in theory they work now.  So I have left them

Russ Allbery (             <>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]