Follow-up Comment #14, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #13 comment #13:] > Alex, does this fix address the problem you reported to the email list in the > "Build error in Devuan stable" thread (linked in comment #4 and comment #5 > here)?
Hmmm, I'll test in a few days, when I turn on my laptop. Here on my desktop I have Debian Sid, so I can't test. (On the other hand, I'm seeing too much breakage recently with systemd, and am considering switching to Devuan everywhere. I don't know how stable their unstable branch is, though.) Regarding the patch itself, I don't like it. I'm not saying it's not the right patch (I don't know autotools, so can't judge that). I just mean that if it's the right thing, it tells me that autotools is brain damaged. Why do you need to test for the existence of a tool that builds documentation for being able to build a binary? The right fix in a sane build system should be to fix the depencencies so that compilation of the binary and compilation of the documentation happen in parallel, and one can succeed without the other. Anyway, I'll try it soon. Thanks! > [comment #5 comment #5:] >> which is a separate thread in the archive (presumably due to >> his client omitting the In-Reply-To: header) > > It's actually a limitation of the email list's archiving software, which > limits every thread to a single calendar month. In email, this thread > spanned two calendar months, so it's archived as two threads. Who should I talk to to ask for a public inbox like GCC, glibc, and other GNU projects have done? <https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc/> <https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/> _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66583> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
