Re: [Groff] Introduction

[Larry McVoy]

On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 09:31:05PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > > > I'd be happy to submit patches once it's converted to roff but I
> > > > just can't bring myself to submit documentation fixes to roff
> > > > docs written in texinfo.
> > >
> > > Sorry, this won't happen for various reasons.
> >
> > I know you've told me before but it must not have been a very
> > satisfying answer since I can't remember.  What are the reasons?  It
> > would seem like we could fine enough groff hackers to redo the docs
> > in roff.
> 
> There are some reasons, the first of them rather imperative.
> 
>   . Documentation of GNU projects should be in texinfo format.  Amen.

Err, there are lots of so-called GNU projects that aren't documented in
texinfo.

>   . groff.texinfo is just a reference.  It is not meant as an example
>     how to do nifty things with groff.  As that, the format is really
>     of no importance -- I would really like to see the UTP to be
>     extended to cover groff features, as mentioned already.
> 
>   . There is no equivalent to the `info' program for groff input since
>     no good groff2texi converter exists.

I'm not sure how you are going to get more roff users when the first thing
they see is the project not using its own product.  A documentation tool
where the documentation for it is written in a different tool?  Come on,
nobody is going to say "hey, that sounds good, let's switch to that".
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com