Re: [Groff] Re: Info versus man

[Robert Goulding]

On Oct 24, 2005, at 9:46 AM, Larry McVoy wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 08:36:43AM -0600, D. E. Evans wrote:
> > > Perhaps only rms, and a couple of others actually use 'GNU OS,'
> > > but those who do, use info.  I wouldn't say they it is right to
> > > call all GNU OS users, developers.
> >
> >    This sounds like you are basing your arguments on people who use a
> >    100% pure GNU system.  If that's the case, that's not going to get
> >    any traction because there are very, very, very few of those 
> > people.
> >
> > I think you are absolutely correct.
>
> OK, so catering to the whims of a few to the detriment of many seems
> pendantic.
>
> So how about this?  Why not let the users/developers decide?  What's 
> wrong
> with the roff people working on roff based docs and the info people
> working on info based docs and let the users use whatever they want?
Just to make a couple of observations, as an ordinary groff user:

First, we should all acknowledge that groff's info files are among the 
best of any open-source project (again, there's some irony here); in 
fact, 'info groff' is just about the only info file I use regularly, 
often keeping it open in an xterm or vim buffer constantly as I work.  
This is largely due to the hard work of Werner and others - any 
alternative documentation project undertaken by members of this list  
should strive to incorporate all of the exhaustive documentation in the 
existing info file, while not making Werner's job in maintaining a 
central document any more difficult.  I share the doubts some have 
expressed about the texinfo format, but I would hate to see a fork in 
the documentation of one of the best-documented packages ever!

Second, quite apart from the ideological objections to texinfo and 
criticisms of the format itself, my real problem is that texinfo is a 
prerequisite for building the CVS groff, and that a TeX installation is 
required for building a pdf of the main documentation.  Some of us are 
attracted to groff in part because it is manages to fit incredible 
typographical power into a very small space.  For all my admiration of 
TeX and immoderate adulation of DEK, modern TeX distributions are 
incredibly bloated; it seems absurd that a ~60 MB installation of TeX 
is required in order to compile the documentation of the ~2 MB groff 
package.  (And yes, I know that a much smaller installation would 
suffice for compiling groff.texi - but that just isn't an option in 
most modern TeX distributions (and try asking on comp.text.tex how to 
install a minimal TeX and you'll be accused of being a dinosaur who 
doesn't realize that disk-space is there to be used!)).

Robert.