On Thursday 05 May 2005 10:24 am, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > And thanks again, for this. Unless there are any objections from
> > others, I'll investigate a solution based on option 4.
>
> I agree. What the autoconf people use we can use also.
But the truly autoconf compatible option would be my original number 3;
option 4 is a compromise, using a shell function to avoid multiple
repetitions of a largish block of almost identical commands, implementing a
pair of nested for loops, to perform a path search for each required command.
Autoconf documentation advises against using shell functions, on portability
grounds.
Should I rather use option 3, making `pdfroff.sh' bigger, and therefore
slower to execute -- it's noticeably slower on my Win32 box than it is on my
Linux box, even though the Win32 box has a processor running at 3 times the
clock speed of the Linux box, and the IDE subsystems are of comparable spec.
-- or should I stick with the compromise of option 4, and use the shell
function, in the expectation that it will be "portable enough"?
Attached is a small script, demonstrating a possible `searchpath' shell
function. Do any users have problems running it? Run as described at the
top of the script -- (don't forget to `gunzip' and `chmod +x' it first).
Within the execution trace, you should see (somewhere):
CAT=/path/to/cat
GROFF=/path/to/groff
with fallback assignments to ':', if either is not found. It should honour
optional assignments for GROFF_BIN_DIR, and then GROFF_BIN_PATH, in the
search for `groff'. Win32 users may need SEP=';', for any shell which uses
native Win32 semantics for PATH; (I'll have `configure' resolve this
requirement, when integrating into `pdfroff').
Thanks for any assistance with testing.
Best regards,
Keith.
_______________________________________________
Groff mailing list
Groff@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
