Replies: 2 comments 1 reply
-
|
I think this makes sense, but I'd like to get comments from others who use the |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
-
|
I'm going to make the change. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
As referenced before, and upon suggestion of @jgm , I'd like to point out that groff stopped maintaining/distributing pdfmark/pdfroff since 1.24.0, 2026-02-28, which is now maintained and distributed separately, to favor the still supported
-Tpdfflag, which calls the Perl scriptgropdffor similar purposes.Thus, it seems to me that the groff should be the default pdf-engine for the
msformat, which along withmanis the groff macro package supported by pandoc.pdfroffrequires ghostscript to postprocess groff's native postscript output, which has ensued a discussion on the pdfmark-groff repo, whilegropdfrequires Perl; so both have extra requirements besidesgroffitself to produce PDF. This and other issues may need to be discussed before making a decision.An issue has already been created related to this discussion, as I did not know exactly how to handle my proposal.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions