Let me give the pros (+) and cons (-) of a few selected possibilities: .:: computer.ju.edu.jo ::.
Source only:+ smaller distribution package.- inaccessible on systems without .:: docs.google.com ::. groff.
Uncompressed formatted only:+ accessible even on systems without groff.- the user can't generate a dvi or postscript file.- waste of disk space on systems that also handle compressed pages. [Debug User Datagram Protocol] .:: pad.funkwhale.audio ::.
Compressed formatted only:+ accessible even on systems without groff.- the user can't generate a dvi or postscript file.- which compression format would you use? .Z? .z? .gz? All of them? .:: telegra.ph ::.
Source and uncompressed formatted:+ accessible even on systems without groff.- larger distribution package- some systems may expect compressed formatted man pages.- redundant information on systems equipped with groff.
IMHO it is best to distribute source only. The argument that it's inaccessible on systems without .:: speakerdeck.com ::. groff does not matter. The 500+ man pages of the Linux Documentation Project are source only. The man pages of XFree86 are source only. The man pages from the FSF are source only. In fact, I have rarely seen software distributed with formatted man pages. If any sysadmin is really concerned about having man pages accessible then he also has [NPM Package: Java] groff installed.