>> This inconsistency of gs on my GNU/Linux is of no importance, but >> it clearly shows that there is a bug while compiling groff: It uses >> `gropdf` from my system instead of using the just compiled >> `gropdf`! > > Are you sure? I cannot verify this hypothesis; whether I build > inside the tree or out of it, I can't get the build to use any groff > executables that aren't in the tree.
Good. I no longer have this gs inconsistency, making it hard to check for the problem again. >> without adjusting the PATH so that the freshly compiled binary >> doesn't come first. > > We do in fact seem to be careful about this. [...] OK. You might also try `strace` to check exactly what files are opened in case such a problem occurs again. > So maybe this is the same issue John Gardner reported after all. > > https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?62918 I don't think so because I compiled groff directly from the tarball. Thanks for checking. Werner
