Re: grog Category in savannah?

[Dave Kemper]

On 6/4/21, G. Branden Robinson <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not certain, but I don't get the feeling bug-groff@ (or
> groff-commit@) is supposed to be a discussion list.

I agree, and generally don't post to it directly, but this question
seemed to have such a limited audience that would care about the
topic, all of whom were likely subscribed to bug-groff, that it seemed
an appropriate venue.

But as we've now moved to talking about rearranging the source tree,
this  list makes more sense.

> I also don't think it's a preprocessor, because it does not produce
> troff(1) input.

Definitely not a proper preprocessor, but it is a thing you run before
you run the thing that does the real work, so it has a faint
preprocessory odor.

> Our utilities fall into 4 categories:

grog doesn't sit fully comfortably with these, as they seem to be
things aimed at developers or power users, whereas grog is much more
general purpose.  But I agree this is an improvement over where it
lives now, and I don't see any better options.  The only other thing I
can think of is to give it its own new directory under src.  This
highlights its status as an unusual case, and directories are cheap.

But putting it in src/util definitely makes the savannah category unambiguous.