Hi Brian, On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 08:17:33AM -0700, brian.ing...@systematicsw.ab.ca wrote: > > My second guess is that ?= since has the = behavior, which is different > > from :=, that might be the problem. We'd need a hypothetical ?:=, > > maybe?
It was that. Bug fixed now: <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/src/alx/linux/man-pages/man-pages.git/commit/?h=contrib&id=afbd0973b226a2b19a855bee76efe0eb0089384e> The fix is ugly, as it involves plaguing the code with ifndef. But that's what we have for now. Some day, we'll be able to compact that with ?:= but make(1) prior to 4.5 need to die before that happens. Thanks for the report! I'll release 6.11.1 soon (maybe tomorrow). > > Sam, that means that I'll have to revert this change with no short-term > > replacement. We'll have to live without environment variables for some > > more time. ?= doesn't work for well here, it seems. > > > > I remember GNU make(1) was working on some of that. Paul, how is it > > going with the idea you suggested some time ago of adding "trigraphs" to > > GNU make(1)? > > Cygwin like Gentoo uses a shell script based build and packaging system > (Cygport vs Ebuild) using env vars so the following variables may conflict: > > CC=gcc > CFLAGS=-ggdb -O2 -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 > -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 > PKG_CONFIG=pkg-config > VERSION=6.11 That sounds like Cygwin or Gentoo attempted to workaround this bug by hard-coding the VERSION. I've now fixed the bug. That workaround code can be removed. > VERSION is the only package dependent variable that conflicts, but that > should not be an issue unless you assume somewhere that it may not be a > "clean" version. Nah, that should work. It is the same exact format that you can find in the 6.10 tarball: alx@devuan:~/Downloads/man/man-pages-6.10$ grepc -xmk VERSION share/mk/ share/mk/configure/version.mk:VERSION := 6.10 In 6.11, the value is bogus, due to using ?=. alx@devuan:~/Downloads/man/man-pages-6.11$ grepc -xmk VERSION share/mk/ share/mk/configure/version.mk:VERSION ?= $(shell $(GIT) describe --dirty | $(SED) 's/$(projname)-//') Which I guess is the reason they hard-coded it. I've fixed it in my working tree. Here are the contents of a tarball I generated with it: alx@devuan:~/tmp/man/man-pages-6.11-3-g69f2407ef$ grepc -xmk VERSION share/mk/ share/mk/configure/version.mk:VERSION := 6.11-3-g69f2407ef > Non-Make-Standard "local" variables could perhaps be prefixed or suffixed by > _ - _VERSION VERSION_? > > Trying to write packaging checks to ensure man pages installed either > sourced another file .so, or had the version in the .TH line, found > exceptions: > > man7/bpf-helpers.7.gz - "Linux v6.?" - you may wish to change that? That's probably a consequence of the bug due to using ?=. That's not there in the source code: alx@devuan:~/src/linux/man-pages/man-pages/contrib$ grep '^.TH' man7/bpf-helpers.7 .TH "BPF-HELPERS" "7" "2024-10-10" "Linux v6.13" And it is neither there if I install the page from a tarball generated from my working tree: alx@devuan:~/tmp/man/man-pages-6.11-3-g69f2407ef$ grep '^.TH' i/usr/local/share/man/man7/bpf-helpers.7 .TH "BPF-HELPERS" "7" "2024-10-10" "Linux v6.13" So I'll assume that bug is the same one, and that it's been fixed. If you keep experiencing it, please report. > man5/tzfile.5.gz man8/tzselect.8.gz man8/zdump.8.gz man8/zic.8.gz > - "Time Zone Database" - I can live with those four (or five?) Hmmm, I think I mentioned this to Paul Eggert. I don't remember what was the result of that conversation. I'll check that some day, but yeah, I can also live with the tzdb pages not specifying their version for now. If you talk to him, you could ask if he would add version info to the tzbd manual pages. I only pull them pristine, as far as I remember. Have a lovely day! Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
