2011-09-13 Hauke (jhr) loaded my masqmail package up to Debian unstable, fi- nally fixing the ``possible security problem bug'' (#638002). Now I'll go for stable and oldstable, which will receive the new packages through -proposed-updates, as I was told. While packaging Heirloom doctools for Crux, I came across this pearl in vgrind/vgrind.sh: # This is a rewrite in sh of a rewrite in ksh of the command # originally written in csh whose last incarnation was: # vgrind.csh 1.16 96/10/14 SMI; from UCB 5.3 (Berkeley) 11/13/85 There is a difference between ``user software'' and ``system software'': The former can be easily replaced with sane alterna- tives; whereas replacing the latter requires to replace several other parts of the system too, to keep it working. Installing the Heirloom doctools *additionally* to groff (i.e. as user software) is easy, but *replacing* groff needs at least adjust- ments to the man(1). Should I go on replacing man-db (Debian) respectively Lucifredi's man (Crux) with Heirloom man in the same go? Or would this finally end up in having everything replaced? In result, I would probably need to port a lot of modern software because they assume to be on GNU/Linux, thus having groff, gmake, gawk, g... Eventually, I would maintain my own distribution. No, today I replaced groff ... let's see what breaks. I was doing this on Crux, where I have everything in control. Doing it on a Debian system is likely much harder. There is this ITP (intend to package) (bug #601860) for heirloom-doctools by Daniel Stender, filed one year ago. Has he already given up? :-) I support his wish to have the Heirloom doctools in Debian ... but I'd only package it as ``user software''. Replacing groff is just too fundamental. This improves readability: echo 'export MANWIDTH=80' >>~/.profile http://marmaro.de/lue/ markus schnalke