Re: documenting musl

[Isaac Dunham <idunham@lavabit.com>]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 08:47:23 -0400
Kurt H Maier <khm-lists@intma.in> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 02:35:22PM +0200, Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
> > 2012/9/8 Kurt H Maier <khm-lists@intma.in>:
> > > On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 10:44:03AM +0200, Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
> > >> btw. documentation - mandoc is a better option than
> > >> (old/big/ugly) groff for documentation.
> > >
> > > None of those links explain why they seem to think it's either
> > > groff or roll-your-own, when there are plenty of lightweight roff
> > > implementations.  Any hints?
> > 
> > hmm... mandoc isn't lightweight? :)
> > 

No, but it's not roff.
Yes, I use roff to write regular documents.
AFAICT if you want any old-format or portable manpages to work, you
may need groff anyhow (unsupported macros make it fallback to groff)


> > 
> > Daniel
> 
> Now you're doing it. There are dozens of other roff implementations,
> such as the one that comes with 9base, or the heirloom doctools, etc.
> Why does everyone who uses mandoc ignore everything but groff?

I'm using heirloom troff myself, and if I write the docs to use *roff
& kin, they will work with heirloom troff (though I _don't_ plan to
make it specific to heirloom-doctools).
Now that may require a little bit of hacking on their mandoc support
if you want mandoc format.  Several mandoc format pages, such as pcc.1,
don't work properly there.