From:	pjfarley AT banet DOT net (Peter J. Farley III)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Do we have a "ditroff" equivalent in DJGPP?
Date:	Thu, 24 Sep 1998 02:28:38 GMT
Message-ID:	<3609ad8e.8530964@news2.banet.net>
References:	<360851b9 DOT 7649275 AT news2 DOT banet DOT net> <6uaj4m$7ei$1 AT star DOT cs DOT vu DOT nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	32.100.252.247
Organization:	IBM.NET
Lines:	25
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

rjvdboon AT cs DOT vu DOT nl (Boon van der RJ) wrote:
<Snipped>
>-Pip2 means to groff: post-process with ip2, which (if it
>exists) is perfectly valid, but if it doesn't....
>-Pxyz on unix also tends to mean: print to printer/device xyz, 
>If you pipe the output to a file (without -Pip2), does that file look
>usefull?

Omitting the "-Pip2" did the trick.  Both grotty and grops produced
useful output, and piping the ps output to a file gave a good
Postscript file that GhostView was able to both display and print.

Thanks very much!

>> TIA for any advice or info on this.  BTW, just what does "ditroff"
>> stand for, anyway?  "display troff", maybe?  Or "device independant
>> troff"?  Or what?
>
>The latter (IIRC)

Thanks again.

----------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Farley III (pjfarley AT nospam DOT dorsai DOT org OR
                     pjfarley AT nospam DOT banet DOT net)

- Raw text -