From: rjvdboon AT cs DOT vu DOT nl (Boon van der RJ)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Do we have a "ditroff" equivalent in DJGPP?
Date: 23 Sep 1998 10:39:18 GMT
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Message-ID: <6uaj4m$7ei$1@star.cs.vu.nl>
References: <360851b9 DOT 7649275 AT news2 DOT banet DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: galjas.cs.vu.nl
Lines: 29
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Peter J. Farley III (pjfarley AT banet DOT net) wrote:
> I recently acquired some documentation which is written with *roff
> formatting commands.  There is an instruction in the starting part of
> the document that tells me to run "ditroff -ms -Pip2 <filename>" to
> print the document.
> 
> The "-ms" argument translates to groff OK, it says to use the macros
> in /share/groff/tmac/tmac.s, but the "-Pip2" argument seems to
> generate a message from grotty:  "can't open `ip2'".  If I add the
> parameter "-Tps" to print to Postscript, grops gives the same
> message about `ip2'.

-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?

> 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)

hth,
 Robert
-- 
rjvdboon AT cs DOT vu DOT nl        | "En dat is niet waar!" sprak ex-Staatsecretaris-
www.cs.vu.nl/~rjvdboon   |    van-Onderwijs Netelenbos fel.