groff --version returns 1.22.2 Having said that, however, it is probably a git version I built at some point. I suggest that non-release versions of groff should display the GIT revision number in addition to the version number in order to remove all ambiguities. I've suggested this to several other packages who have agreed making debugging a lot easier.
Thanks. Blake On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Ralph Corderoy <ra...@inputplus.co.uk> wrote: > Hi Blake, > > > .nr Hb 0 > > .nr Hs 0 > > .nr Hi 0 > > .H 1 AAAAAAAAAAAAA > > .P > > Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party. > > .H 2 BBBBBBBBBBBBB > > .P > > Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party. > > > > Groff produces output in which the section headers are overwritten by > > the paragraph text. > > That seems wrong. (Though .P is ignored after .H; that shouldn't > matter though.) > > > The text this sample was taken from was developed with groff around a > > year ago. At that time, the old groff acted like the new heirloom > > does now. > > I'd say older is better. :-) Can you be any more specific about the > versions? That would help narrow down changes that might have caused > the problem. > > Cheers, Ralph. >
