Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

[Deri]

On Wednesday, 2 October 2024 19:29:26 BST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> To accept such a restriction is to surrender groff to stagnation.  While
> I am aware of at least one person for whom that situation is a
> preference, I claim that the same can be achieved by never upgrading
> groff from the version one finds satisfactory.  In the meantime, those
> who _don't_ want groff to stagnate can benefit from its development.

I agree stagnation is not good, but it is undesirable if changes break 
existing documents. An example is the utp document which a lot of people on 
this list put together. Neither the original 1.0, producing postscript, nor 
1.1, producing a pdf, now build properly, from https://github.com/larrykollar/
Unix-Text-Processing.

Various problems occur using current git groff, from extra blank pages, text 
which was set as mono spaced appearing as Times-Roman, pdf bookmarks jumping 
to the wrong page, input line numbers appearing in the output (1.0 postscript 
only - also affects 1.23.0 - Ok in 1.22.4).

Are all of these changes in behaviour really fixes to bugs in groff?

Cheers 

Deri