Re: [Groff] groffview shell script

[Bernd Warken]

On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 10:40:43AM +0000, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> 
> Yes, I'm not suggesting xdpyinfo or X -probeonly.  Just xset to query
> the font path.  But your test is inadequate and both Stewart and I have
> pointed that out repeatedly, and I've provided some simple awk to do a
> better test.
> 
I already pointed out that I appreciate your script.  It works nicely
by itself.  But the real world isn't perfect.

Tho my system runs on

(--) NV(0): DPI set to (133, 150)

my font path has

/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi,/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi

due to automatic plunder made by the system configuration.
So xset is not reliable, neither on determining the resolution nor on 
the order of the font path.

Actually, almost all modern systems run fine with 100dpi, while 75 dpi
is unreadable.

> Your statement `100 is always good, except if there aren't any 100
> fonts' is false.  100 may be a poor substitute for 75 and 75 should be
> used in preference.  That's why, for example, it appears sooner in the
> font path.  And that's why the awk looked along the font path to see
> what was specified first.
> 
> So either hardcode 100 or put in a better test than `grep'.
> 
Actually, almost all modern systems run fine with 100dpi, while 75 dpi
is unreadable.
So I chose a defensive test that only garantees that 100dpi fonts are
accessible, nothing more.

Moverover, I'll take over the groff option -X that atuomatically chooses
75 dpi for people that need so.  MAybe I will add -T support as well.

Moreover, there could be some global system environment variable for
both groff and groffview that presets the resolution used by -X, e.g.
$GROFF_X_DPI. 

> > I'm using the `man -w' mechanism in groffview 0.2 to get the
> > man-pages.
> 
> My point was that it seems like feeping creaturism for groffview to do
> this since it is already available with man, 

Well, I think that this feature makes sense.  You can display man pages
in graphical mode (with the gxditview program) and you can get the source
code, which is also decompressed on the fly.

> especially if your man has
> -w available, which mine doesn't  :-)  It's not part of the Single UNIX
> Specification, Version 2.
> 
Thanx for reporting.  My first idea is, bad luck for the cripple system.
Move to the real `guys'.

Nevertheless, I provided the $MANPATH and a reasonable default method
for the users of a `poor' system (i.e. the ones that cost a lot of bux).
Beyond that, no mercy with the robber industry.

> So it'll either not work because man doesn't have -w, or it probably
> isn't worth having since cat will do the same job.
> 
>     cat `man -w true`
> 
On my system, this produces a lot of plunder because the source file is
compressed.  On commercial systems, you might even ruin your hardware :-(.

Bernd Warken