From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1885 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kurt H Maier Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: documenting musl Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 10:09:24 -0400 Message-ID: <20120908140924.GA69059@intma.in> References: <20120908024006.GA5937@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120907233658.2eb8ee1a@newbook> <20120908114828.GA67571@intma.in> <20120908124723.GA68331@intma.in> <20120908131613.GA68892@intma.in> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1347113379 754 80.91.229.3 (8 Sep 2012 14:09:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 14:09:39 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1886-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Sep 08 16:09:41 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TALjB-0007Ly-AY for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Sep 2012 16:09:41 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 12173 invoked by uid 550); 8 Sep 2012 14:09:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 12162 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2012 14:09:37 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1885 Archived-At: On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 03:42:59PM +0200, Daniel Cegiełka wrote: > think it would be a better solution than mandoc etc.? mandoc, like > musl, is a new and fresh solution with supports modern expectations > for the documentation system. Why old troff will be better? mandoc is a program written with the sole aim of replacing groff. groff is overengineered and full of useless things and bad licensing. I get it. However, mandoc is a one-trick pony, not suitable for general typesetting. why on earth would you have one command for typesetting, and another command for typesetting in a subset of the first program's input format? it's silly. this is a common paradigm in computing: over time, a solution becomes unpleasant. A new tool is made to resolve the unpleasantness, but the new tool takes for granted other unpleasant factors, which are then standardized into the system with the acceptance of the new tool. mandoc does nothing that roff wouldn't do before, and roff will do anything mandoc will do. but rich is right, this is all pointless. we'll wind up using the doc tools preferred by the person who actually writes the documentation, as it should be.