Package Details: mandoc 1.14.3-2

Git Clone URL: (read-only)
Package Base: mandoc
Description: A suite of tools compiling mdoc from the OpenBSD project
Upstream URL:
Licenses: custom: ISC
Conflicts: man
Provides: man
Submitter: hydraz
Maintainer: ybden
Last Packager: ybden
Votes: 7
Popularity: 0.217189
First Submitted: 2015-12-28 17:03
Last Updated: 2018-04-16 19:21

Latest Comments

ybden commented on 2018-04-16 19:26

Thanks to everyone for their input.

I've removed the conflict with groff, given the features not provided by mandoc. mandoc's soelim is now msoelim (as with the manpage), and mandoc's roff(7) is now mandoc_roff(7) (as with mandoc_man(7) and mandoc_mdoc(7) due to the name conflict with man-pages).

I've left the conflict with man in, though, given this is a full replacement for man-db &c (as well as the fact that prefixing common commands like man and such is just plain ugly).

schwarze commented on 2018-04-16 12:40

I agree strongly with RalphCorderoy (and i'm the upstream maintainer).

Mandoc is neither a full replacement for groff nor intended as such. It is not even aiming to be a real typesetting system.

In addition to that, and to the aspect Ralph mentions (mandoc does not support many important macro sets nor all of the low-level roff(7) language), there are two more reasons why i need both installed in parallel all the time: (1) A small number of manual pages - about 0.25% in the wild - still require groff and do not work with mandoc. (2) Having both installed in parallel is required for routine output comparisons - mandoc even provides a convenience script to do such comparisons.

Besides, the mandoc build system provides support for renaming several of the installed files precisely to allow installation in parallel with other man(1) implementations (even though i believe that mandoc is a full replacement for man-db and similar packages - but conflicts are always a pain and can easily be avoided in this case).

RalphCorderoy commented on 2018-04-16 11:24

Doesn't mandoc only provide groff's functionality as far as manual pages are concerned? If using groff for typesetting, e.g. the macro set, then groff is still required.

lahwaacz commented on 2017-08-28 12:37

@ybden: What if I need mandoc for HTML conversion, but still want man-db/groff for browsing man pages in the console? That's mostly due to mandoc's lack of $MANWIDTH and text justification (see man --no-justification).

FWIW, you could choose suffixes instead of prefixes, if it makes a difference to you.

ybden commented on 2017-08-28 11:31

Rather than continuing to pollute executable namespace with prefixes,
this package now outright conflicts with groff. mandoc provides the
functionality of both groff and man-db combined; as such, I consider
it a full replacement. Thanks for reporting the conflict.

lahwaacz commented on 2017-08-27 14:50

Conflicts with the groff package:

error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files)
mandoc: /usr/bin/soelim exists in filesystem
mandoc: /usr/share/man/man1/soelim.1.gz exists in filesystem
mandoc: /usr/share/man/man7/roff.7.gz exists in filesystem
Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded.

The other mdocml package solves it differently to avoid conflicts with man-db and groff (I think it is better this way, because mandoc provides only the soelim binary and not other files from groff):

anjbe commented on 2016-08-27 06:35

Why use -j1 in the build? Is there a problem with the upstream makefile?