Hi Branden, On Fri Nov 22, 2024 at 8:35 PM CET, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > and it even does some of this multiple times: > > > > > > Autoconf has had a caching system for a long time. Maybe decades. > > > [...] > > > > Well, the checks I quoted apparently didn't use caching. I checked the > > output again and other ones are being cached, but the ones I quoted > > aren't. > > $ autoconf --version | head -n 1 > > autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.71 > > $ automake --version | head -n 1 > > automake (GNU automake) 1.16.5 > > Were you quoting a groff build or some other project's?
I was quoting a groff build. > > I was talking about figuring out how to manually disable the texinfo > > prerequisite. > > I don't advise anyone to attempt this until we can officially support. > If it's done at all, it should be done correctly. Well, too late... > > > > I am still puzzled that GNU has so many volunteers and supporters > > > > given how awfully it approaches just so many things. > > > > > > I can't, and wouldn't want to, command you to contribute to any GNU > > > project. In my experience, people who are convinced that the grass > > > is so much greener somewhere else invariably find out that it isn't. > > > They then either pretend not to have made this discovery, or they > > > embrace a more realistic perspective. > > > > > > That goes for many aspects of life, of course, not just software. > > > > Well, most 'somewhere else' at least don't require me to surrender > > ownership of the stuff I contribute. > > If you think this is true of groff, that's false. Here's part of the > new-maintainer-onboarding email I received in September. > [...] > I'm keenly aware that the groff home page still has a banner on it > claiming that copyright assignment is required. It's my intention to > remove that banner after I've sorted out the copyright assignment status > of past contributions: [...] Good to know. I guess the FSF's communication to the public just isn't the best, to say the least. > > From my own experience, though, sometimes the grass really IS greener > > on the other side. For instance, I have had great experience switching > > away from systemd, apt, and PulseAudio. > > 2 out of 3 ain't bad. [...] But could be significantly simpler. > apt, I've never had a bad experience with.[3] [...] I recently needed to downgrade the kernel on an Ubuntu-based distribution. It was non-trivial, to say the least. > > I'm not saying it's always the case, but sometimes people really use > > horrible software for no apparent reason other than inertia. > > I'll say it before someone else does: you may be attacking the > readership of this mailing list with that observation. > > Fortunately for me, I don't share that view. groff has its oddities and > frustrations, but I don't find it "horrible" or I wouldn't work on it. Likewise. It's still much easier to work with than TeX. > But I will complain where I see problems, and try to fix them if I think > I can. That's how a system gets improved. Well, I tried doing just that. I will let you decide whether it qualifies as "do[ing it] correctly." > I would have retitled the Subject line of this message but couldn't > think of one better than "Potpourri", which wasn't good enough. lol. Sorry for the spam. ~ onf
