Re: [PATCH] Bd -literal/-unfilled and old groff.

[Kristaps Dzonsons <kristaps@bsd.lv>]

>> In looking for `Sm' violators, I found that `Bd -unfilled' or `Bd 
>> -literal' are playing ugly with mandoc and sub-macros.
>>
>> The following at least brings us in line with old groff (less some 
>> spacing issues here and there).  New groff is completely different.  Sigh.
>>
>> Ingo, this is mostly for you.  Thoughts?  This at least fixes the main 
>> violators, like awk.1, but there could be unexpected fallout.  I haven't 
>> been able to find any, but I didn't look too hard.
>>
>> Kristaps
> 
> so, there has always been an issue that if you stick macros which change
> appearance (bold or whatever) in a literal display, you get screwy
> output. i wasn;t aware that it affects -filled/-unfilled types, but
> there you go.
> 
> the awk.1 stuff is probably just wrong. our old groff formatted this
> nicely, but newer ones (understandably) dislike it. i think after
> release i will probably convert this to a list, and remove the issue.
> 
> on a nice side note, your diff fixes our boot_config(8) page, which also
> has some .No within a literal display. it now formats as it should, and
> the same as new groff.

So it does!  I've just committed a cleaned-up version of the patch.

Thanks,

Kristaps
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv