[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bug #55941] [PATCH] test-nroff: Create this file to accompany "test-gro

From: G. Branden Robinson
Subject: [bug #55941] [PATCH] test-nroff: Create this file to accompany "test-groff"
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 00:47:36 -0500 (EST)
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0 PureBrowser/60.9.0

Update of bug #55941 (project groff):

                  Status:                    None => Wont Fix               
             Assigned to:                    None => gbranden               
             Open/Closed:                    Open => Closed                 


Follow-up Comment #3:

I concur with Dave and Ingo.  `test-groff` is nice and convenient but I don't
think we need any other special wrappers.

Also, we really need more unit and regression tests, and we're slowly getting

(I guess you could say test-groff serves as a kind of integration test.  It
doesn't quite simulate an installation environment, but  once I learned how it
works I realized it comes pretty close.)

I also don't quite grasp Bjarni's original use case.


DEFINE nroff test-nroff -mandoc -rF=0

when you could just as easily

DEFINE nroff nroff -whatever -options -you -like

As Dave noted in #57510, there is a bit of tension between nroff and {g,t}roff
in that the former does locale detection but lacks a -P option.  The locale
detection in particular makes it not a simple subsetted compatibility wrapper
for troff as it claims to be.

But since it's my intention to add -P to nroff, I think we can get the best of
both worlds.

I'm closing this as wontfix for now, but if Bjarni can come up with a more
compelling argument for test-nroff I could reconsider.


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via Savannah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]