[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 'man groff' reports end of file while defining macro `TP'
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: 'man groff' reports end of file while defining macro `TP' |
Date: |
Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:57:44 -0700 |
> Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 11:12:41 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden>
>
> 1. Install groff with
>
> make install tmac_wrap=""
>
> to use groff's macro packages instead of Sun's. Then the extended
> groff syntax is the default, and man pages using the old troff
> syntax (this is, no whitespace between a two-character command and
> its first argument) can be handled by adding groff's -C command
> line switch to activate compatibility mode on demand.
I just tried 'make install tmac_wrap=""' and it didn't fix the
problem: I still got
/opt/reb/share/man/man1/groff.1:57: error: end of file while defining macro
`TP'
troff: warning: numeric expression expected (got `\')
Also, I don't get the problem when I run "man gtroff" or any of the other
man pages -- just "man groff". So I suspect it has something to do with
the groff man page itself.
> 3. Filter all man pages through the `fixmacros.sed' script (which
> comes with groff) and avoid the use of wrapper files so that
> groff's macro files are input.
This doesn't seem to be necessary for Solaris 9. fixmacros.sed
makes a few changes, but they're all wrong. For example, it replaces
"\fBsolaris\&.role\&.assign\fR" with
"\fBsolaris\&.role\&.assi gn\fR".
I checked Solaris 9 /usr/share/man for man pages affected by
fixmacros.sed -- including man pages that are generated dynamically
with /usr/lib/sgml/sgml2roff -- and found only one change that
might be useful, namely this:
--- man1/bash.1 2003-02-24 09:55:52.000000000 -0800
+++ - 2003-06-18 15:54:16.578800836 -0700
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
.in \\n()Ru+\\n(INu+\\n()Iu
.ti \\n(INu
.ie !\\n()Iu+\\n()Ru-\w\\*(]Xu-3p \{\\*(]X
-.br\}
+.br \}
.el \\*(]X\h|\\n()Iu+\\n()Ru\c
.}f
..
but this appears to me to be unnecessary?
So, for Solaris 9 anyway (and I presume for earlier Solaris versions),
it should be OK to drop the compatibility stuff. This doesn't address
the groff.1 issue, though.