Path: csiph.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail From: "G. Branden Robinson" Newsgroups: gnu.groff.bug Subject: [bug #55941] [PATCH] test-nroff: Create this file to accompany "test-groff" Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 00:47:36 -0500 (EST) Lines: 54 Approved: bug-groff@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <20190317-171436.sv93188.53378@savannah.gnu.org> <20190318-063608.sv97361.84088@savannah.gnu.org> <20190319-111042.sv93119.26542@savannah.gnu.org> <20200118-054735.sv108747.99939@savannah.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lists.gnu.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: usenet.stanford.edu 1579326460 25247 209.51.188.17 (18 Jan 2020 05:47:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: action@cs.stanford.edu To: "G. Branden Robinson" , Dave , Bjarni Ingi Gislason , Ingo Schwarze , bug-groff@gnu.org Envelope-to: bug-groff@gnu.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1001:sendmail.php X-Savane-Server: savannah.gnu.org:443 [209.51.188.79] X-Savane-Project: groff X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 55941 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0 PureBrowser/60.9.0 X-Apparently-From: 1.144.104.86 (Savane authenticated user gbranden) In-Reply-To: <20190319-111042.sv93119.26542@savannah.gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.79 X-BeenThere: bug-groff@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for the GNU version of nroff, troff et al" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Mailman-Original-Message-ID: <20200118-054735.sv108747.99939@savannah.gnu.org> X-Mailman-Original-References: <20190317-171436.sv93188.53378@savannah.gnu.org> <20190318-063608.sv97361.84088@savannah.gnu.org> <20190319-111042.sv93119.26542@savannah.gnu.org> Xref: csiph.com gnu.groff.bug:1652 Update of bug #55941 (project groff): Status: None => Wont Fix Assigned to: None => gbranden Open/Closed: Open => Closed _______________________________________________________ Follow-up Comment #3: I concur with Dave and Ingo. `test-groff` is nice and convenient but I don't think we need any other special wrappers. Also, we really need more unit and regression tests, and we're slowly getting them. (I guess you could say test-groff serves as a kind of integration test. It doesn't quite simulate an installation environment, but once I learned how it works I realized it comes pretty close.) I also don't quite grasp Bjarni's original use case. Why DEFINE nroff test-nroff -mandoc -rF=0 when you could just as easily DEFINE nroff nroff -whatever -options -you -like As Dave noted in #57510, there is a bit of tension between nroff and {g,t}roff in that the former does locale detection but lacks a -P option. The locale detection in particular makes it not a simple subsetted compatibility wrapper for troff as it claims to be. But since it's my intention to add -P to nroff, I think we can get the best of both worlds. I'm closing this as wontfix for now, but if Bjarni can come up with a more compelling argument for test-nroff I could reconsider. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/