On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:54:18 -0700, "Anthony J. Bentley" wrote: > Jan Stary writes: > > groff-1.21p8 ships with grap2graph(1) > > which metions grap(1) in its manpage. > > > > But neither grap(1) nor the grap(1) manpage seems to be present. > > grap(1) is one of the many historical companion programs to troff > (like chem, pic... see http://troff.org/prog.html for more). I don't > think groff contains an implementation, but it's appropriate for the > manpage to link to it (and since it's a package manpage we don't > really need to be messing with the text of it anyway). > > We don't appear to have a package for grap. An implementation is > here: http://www.lunabase.org/~faber/Vault/software/grap/ > I will submit a port for it sometime after unlock.
There's graphics/grap. > > Also, grap2graph(1) wants convert(1), without having that as > > a dependency: > > > > $ grap2graph > > /usr/local/bin/grap2graph[83]: grap: not found > > /usr/local/bin/grap2graph[83]: convert: not found > > > > Similarly for pic2graph(1) and eqn2graph(1). > > > > What do? I understand groff(1) is a legacy, > > I wouldn't call the groff package legacy. Using groff for manpages may be > on the way out (as mandoc gets more feature-complete), but some people do > use groff for other typesetting purposes. > > > but as long as we need it (some ports do), > > should we also get all its dependencies? > > Maybe, but ImageMagick is a fairly large dependency, and this is a fairly > fringe program within groff... A run dep may be appropriate, but I'm > inclined to just leave the dep out. But I'm interested to hear what others > think. Adding either graphics/grap or graphics/ImageMagick as a run dep would 1) pull in a shitload of other dependencies for groff. It's in our best interest to keep that dependency list as small as possible since groff unlocks thousands of packages in bulk builds. 2) create a dependency loop as both of these are USE_GROFF. So it's impossible for groff to depend on them.
