| 3 | | |
| 4 | | Mandoc is neither a full replacement for groff nor intended as such. It is not even aiming to be a real typesetting system. |
| 5 | | |
| 6 | | In addition to that, and to the aspect [that] mandoc does not support many important macro sets nor all of the low-level roff(7) language[], there are two more reasons why i need both installed in parallel all the time: (1) A small number of manual pages - about 0.25% in the wild - still require groff and do not work with mandoc. (2) Having both installed in parallel is required for routine output comparisons - mandoc even provides a convenience script to do such comparisons. |
| 7 | | |
| 8 | | Besides, the mandoc build system provides support for renaming several of the installed files precisely to allow installation in parallel with other `man(1)` implementations (even though i believe that mandoc is a full replacement for man-db and similar packages - but conflicts are always a pain and can easily be avoided in this case). |
| | 3 | > Mandoc is neither a full replacement for groff nor intended as such. It is not even aiming to be a real typesetting system. |
| | 4 | > |
| | 5 | > In addition to that, and to the aspect [that] mandoc does not support many important macro sets nor all of the low-level roff(7) language[], there are two more reasons why i need both installed in parallel all the time: (1) A small number of manual pages - about 0.25% in the wild - still require groff and do not work with mandoc. (2) Having both installed in parallel is required for routine output comparisons - mandoc even provides a convenience script to do such comparisons. |
| | 6 | > |
| | 7 | > Besides, the mandoc build system provides support for renaming several of the installed files precisely to allow installation in parallel with other `man(1)` implementations (even though i believe that mandoc is a full replacement for man-db and similar packages - but conflicts are always a pain and can easily be avoided in this case). |
