Re: groff injects blank page

[G. Branden Robinson]

At 2023-04-27T11:06:20-0400, Carlos wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 05:24:00PM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > mso is a request, and it is documented in groff(7) like other
> > requests.
> > 
> > I might have time to follow up on the rest later, but I will note
> > briefly that "Ignored because insecure." does not sound like
> > language I recognize from any groff release.  It sounds exactly like
> > mandoc(1) documentation--specifically the mandoc_roff(7) page.
> > mandoc is a separate project and groff developers have no
> > responsibility for it.
> 
> You're correct. Amazing

I can think of some other people who are amazed when I'm right...

[snip]
> and mandoc is also the formatting part of groff

No.  It is a completely independent software project with only slightly
overlapping goals.

> or else running groff would be useless,

I suppose some mandoc(1) advocates regard groff as useless if they never
have any need for typesetting.  Or they use a TeX distribution, or
Lout...or FrameMaker...

> am I wrong? correct me if so.  I'm a bit tired. 

The history of typesetting software on Unix is lengthy.  When groff
1.23.0 is released, a history I thoroughly revised and updated will be
available in the roff(7) man page.

> And on groff(7) 
> 
>        .mso file The same as .so except that file is searched in the tmac
>                  directories.
> 
> and therein lies the problem without a kludge
> .mso never loads man.local producing the unwanted blank page
> .mso never loads man.local producing the unwanted blank page
> , .do does instead on 1.22.4 without injecting that blank page

I don't understand your complaint.  Also, do you mean ".do" or ".so"?
Each is a distinctly meaningful request to groff(1).

Did you ever grep your man.local file for blank lines as I suggested?

Regards,
Branden

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature