Re: [Groff] Choosing a portability target

[Clarke Echols]

I won't get involved in the personality clashes, but as an "outsider"
of sorts, I'll kick in my bit about cross-platform compatibilities.

I use groff via cygwin on a Windows 98 machine.  Cygwin is my
sanity-preservation tool that enables me to do the stuff that Windows
is to dumb to do and I don't like XP and the "newer" stuff either.

I used troff/eroff at HP from 1985 through 1992, and later for
creating printed-circuit artwork instead of CAD software that I
didn't have anyway.  I always liked the control troff gives me. The
2-character name limit was a nuisance but nothing that can't
be lived with in the HP-UX environment.

I was somewhat hesitant to really accept the longer names allowed
by groff because I usually prefer "backwards compatibility", but
after taking advantage of it, I find it very nice in terms of
keeping macros readable when I create or modify them.

There is no chance that Unix systems based on BSD or AT&T Unix
(Solaris, AIX, and HP-UX specifically) will upgrade nroff to
accept the longer naming capability, and about the only thing
it is used for is for running man(1).

Given the expanding use of Linux and the general superiority of
groff over AT&T troff (my opinion as a user-only) I see little
advantage to maintaining compatibility with HP-UX-based troff
(which HP doesn't sell or provide anyway, but eroff was/is
available for a price for HP-UX systems and that's what I used
in the 1989-1999 time period at HP -- it is/was essentially pure
AT&T troff with some enhancements).

HOWEVER, if groff can be compiled and run on HP-UX, groff-oriented
man pages will also need to be installed in the usual directories
on HP-UX systems, and HP-UX users will expect to be able to run
the man command on those pages.

THEREFORE, I think it would be wise to avoid using macro, string,
or other entity names in gnu man page macros that violate the
2-character rule.  Same applies to me and ms macros.  If you want
to use expanded-length names in a macro package, it should have a
different name so the user doesn't expect it to run under nroff(1)
on HP-UX/Solaris/AIX systems.

I haven't used an HP-UX machine in 7-1/2 years, so I have no clue
what they are doing now.  My thinking may be completely out of date,
but given the mind set at HP in 1999, I suspect it's still pretty
accurate.

Clarke