Re: [Groff] groff documentation

[Larry McVoy]

> Providing an archive with the original files would be a first
> starting point.

OK, I'll get to this.  I'd like to maintain them in BitKeeper, if that's
OK with you.  BitKeeper is somewhat based on SCCS, these docs were 
originally maintained in SCCS, and I want to check them in under the
original author's name and dates.  It would be really cool, in my
twisted mind, to do a 

        bk prs -r1.1 m5

and see

        ======== m5 1.1 ========
        D 1.1 86/04/17 14:09:35-08:00 research!ossanna 2 1 424/0/0
        P BSDdocs/usd/24.troff/m5
        ------------------------------------------------

If I go through all the work of checking this stuff into revision control
and getting the author and dates correct, I want it maintained under that
system going forward.  Is that a problem?  You can use BitKeeper for free,
that's not an issue.

> Note that some volunteers coordinated by Larry Kollar have typed in
> the whole `Unix Text Processing' book (since the original source files
> are lost according to the authors); it is planned to extend it,
> covering recent groff versions.

That is excellent!

> > I've always found it weird that groff docs aren't in roff, seems a
> > bit lame.
> 
> Basically I agree, but texinfo has some useful capabilities not
> available with groff.

Grumble.  Double grumble.  I really really want groff to documented with
groff.  I want it enough that I will eventually go down the path off adding
the extensions to the BSD/ATT docs.  What is it that you need out of 
texinfo and why is that not being added to groff?  BitMover isn't a 
wealthy company but if some donations would help I'd at the very least
consider it.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com           
http://www.bitmover.com/lm