Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 8:00 PM Gerald Pfeifer <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, Sandra Loosemore wrote: >> > AFAIK we have not knowingly changed any specific requirements beyond the >> > stated 4.7 and 4.9 for PDF output, but it concerns me that nobody is >> > likely to be using versions that old on a regular basis to make sure >> > they continue to work and we haven't unknowingly introduced dependencies >> > on newer Texinfo features. >> >> I'm generally very interested in ensuring we do not hurt users who do not >> have the latest and greatest of the day. On the other hand, if there's a >> few people using (more or less deliberately abandonware) we should not >> feel too bad if something breaks. >> >> > Anyway, I think I will leave the existing requirement alone for now, and >> > just add a note that newer versions produce better output. >> >> With Richi mentioning that SLE 12 (which was first released 9 years ago) >> uses texinfo 4.13a and Andrew mentioning that RHEL 7 uses texinfo 5.1 I >> would feel very comfortable making either 4.13 or even 5.1 the new minimum. >> >> (Not because we need to cater to those two Enterprise Linux distros, >> rather since they tend to fall on the conversative side.) > > We could also opt to ship generated pdf documentation with the > release tarballs - the pre-built info format plus manual pages is > probably of less use these days?
They're still widely installed and I suspect many open the manpages as a quick reference. I guess that fewer open the info pages, but it's not nobody (I certainly do, but I also have texinfo installed so I can generate them anyway, as I do for the weekly snapshots that I have installed). > Richard. > >> Gerald -- Arsen Arsenović
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
