Hi Bernd,
> Ingo wrote:
> > I suspect this reordering might be a bad idea. I realize you are
> > trying to make this nicer by ordering it alphabetically, but i don't
> > think the order is arbitrary. I certainly remember dependency and
> > ordering issues when porting groff in the past.
>
> Ordering is 'logical' ("Spock").As is topological ordering by dependency if that's what's need to make it work consistently. :-) Cheers, Ralph.
