Hi, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: >>Probably, but a successful build of the Cygwin HTML documentation relies >>on texi2html being present. > > > Ah.
Nice one of me to come into the discussion a week late, but I've been doing something recently that required texi2html. Not wanting to gripe or anything, I genuinely appreciate all the voluntary effort that goes into cygwin, but I flagged this a while back (although I bumbled along in the thread): http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2005-05/msg00554.html Anyway, I just thought I'd flag another dependency on texi2html I have perceived (not verified). At least when building Xemacs packages from CVS, there is some dependency on this executable. Now, that suggests to me that the xemacs-sumo would be dependant as well. > It wasn't dropped intentionally, as it wasn't even supposed to be in 2.0.x. > > Indeed. I'm not sure what that means, maybe the --without-texi2html > switch was broken in 2.0.x. I just found this all out the hard way. I noticed the switch in the mknetrel file for 3.0.0-3, and knowing that the executable was included in 2.0.x, I wondered about the rationale of its' inclusion. Looking for comment, I noticed that the switch was included in 2.0.x and it became obvious that it shouldn't have gone into the build in the first place. That's when I decided to use the mailing list search function. Moral of the (yes, rather boring) story is that you should always search the mailing list first. Otherwise, Debian has a whole package just for that script... is it untrendy to follow suit? Thanks for your attention, Shaddy -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
