[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #53, bug #66583 (group groff): Hi onf, On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 08:29:10PM -0500, anonymous wrote: > You can work around that: > > export MAKEFLAGS=-e PREFIX=/bar > make > make install Hmmm. True! (Actually, I'm waiting for the release of make 4.5, since I use MAKEFLA

Re: [bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Hi onf, On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 08:29:10PM -0500, anonymous wrote: > You can work around that: > > export MAKEFLAGS=-e PREFIX=/bar > make > make install Hmmm. True! (Actually, I'm waiting for the release of make 4.5, since I use MAKEFLAGS += --no-builtin-rules MAKEFLAGS += --n

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #52, bug #66583 (group groff): Hi Alex, [comment #51 comment #51:] > On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 01:18:50PM -0500, anonymous wrote: >> Follow-up Comment #50, bug #66583 (group groff): >> [comment #44 comment #44:] >>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 07:24:03AM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wro

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #51, bug #66583 (group groff): Hi onf, On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 01:18:50PM -0500, anonymous wrote: > Follow-up Comment #50, bug #66583 (group groff): > > [comment #44 comment #44:] >> On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 07:24:03AM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: >>> I trust you realize tha

Re: [bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Hi onf, On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 01:18:50PM -0500, anonymous wrote: > Follow-up Comment #50, bug #66583 (group groff): > > [comment #44 comment #44:] > > On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 07:24:03AM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > >> I trust you realize that you and onf are arguing diametrically opposed

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #50, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #44 comment #44:] > On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 07:24:03AM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: >>> Also, the list of targets should be unconditional, and configure >>> shouldn't mess with them. Targets are make(1)'s business. But >>> usually, .

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #49, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #42 comment #42:] > Thanks. > > Also, if file #56729 is merely a bug-fixed version of file #56727, I'd like > to delete the latter attachment so that it doesn't get used inadvertently. Go ahead; I would have done it myself if I had the p

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #48, bug #66583 (group groff): Hi Branden, On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 11:01:31AM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Follow-up Comment #47, bug #66583 (group groff): > > At 2024-12-31T10:27:22-0500, Alejandro Colomar wrote: >> Most likely. I sometimes install stuff with --no-insta

Re: [bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Hi Branden, On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 11:01:31AM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Follow-up Comment #47, bug #66583 (group groff): > > At 2024-12-31T10:27:22-0500, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > Most likely. I sometimes install stuff with --no-install-recommends, > > which might have been the res

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #47, bug #66583 (group groff): At 2024-12-31T10:27:22-0500, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Most likely. I sometimes install stuff with --no-install-recommends, > which might have been the responsible for this. It's good that it > unveiled a bug in groff's build system This conclus

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #46, bug #66583 (group groff): Hi Branden, On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 10:04:22AM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Follow-up Comment #45, bug #66583 (group groff): > > [just the build failure issue] > > Looks to me like a missing TeX-related dependency. (A missing font, > maybe?

Re: [bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Hi Branden, On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 10:04:22AM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Follow-up Comment #45, bug #66583 (group groff): > > [just the build failure issue] > > Looks to me like a missing TeX-related dependency. (A missing font, > maybe?) Most likely. I sometimes install stuff with

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #45, bug #66583 (group groff): [just the build failure issue] At 2024-12-31T09:55:05-0500, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > kpathsea: Running mktextfm lcircle10 > /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/web2c/mktexnam: Could not map source > abbreviation for lcircle10. > /usr/share/texlive/tex

Re: [bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Hi Branden, On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 07:24:03AM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Follow-up Comment #43, bug #66583 (group groff): > > Hi Alex, > > At 2024-12-30T01:24:39+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > I don't know that build system [imake], and don't know what I would > > think of it. But

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #44, bug #66583 (group groff): Hi Branden, On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 07:24:03AM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Follow-up Comment #43, bug #66583 (group groff): > > Hi Alex, > > At 2024-12-30T01:24:39+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: >> I don't know that build system [imake], an

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #43, bug #66583 (group groff): Hi Alex, At 2024-12-30T01:24:39+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 05:47:41PM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: >> Follow-up Comment #33, bug #66583 (group groff): >> To lead with a summary: I partly disagree with your rants,

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #42, bug #66583 (group groff): Thanks. Also, if file #56729 is merely a bug-fixed version of file #56727, I'd like to delete the latter attachment so that it doesn't get used inadvertently. ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #41, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #40 comment #40:] > OK. Unless you have any objection, I'll: > * close bug #66609 (which has the more limited scope of the two) > * leave bug #66611 open to potentially be renamed/rescoped to cover the > solution ultimately chosen > * remo

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #40, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #39 comment #39:] > I have directed all of my postings here since the bulk of the discussion on > this topic has happened here anyway. Fair. All the interested parties seem to be already cc:ed here. > The two prior patches do mean those

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #39, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #38 comment #38:] > [comment #30 comment #30:] >> The patches are attached. >> >> This seems a superior way of implementing this compared to the >> two patches I have submitted before. > > As a point of order, this bug is currently closed

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #38, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #30 comment #30:] > The patches are attached. > > This seems a superior way of implementing this compared to the > two patches I have submitted before. As a point of order, this bug is currently closed. Do your attached patches fall unde

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #37, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #32 comment #32:] > It seems I can't do anything without overlooking something, doesn't it? The new *-clean targets should also be added to .PHONY. It's not a big deal, though, since there aren't any files with such names. __

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #36, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #33 comment #33:] > [...] > At 2024-12-29T16:14:22+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: >> (So was the other, though.) The only proper patch, is one that >> removes the dependency that the binary has on the docuentation. > > Note, then, what my

Re: [bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Hi Branden, On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 05:47:41PM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Follow-up Comment #33, bug #66583 (group groff): > > Hi Alex, > > To lead with a summary: I partly disagree with your rants, From what I've read, you agree quite a lot, actually. > but think you > may have ident

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #35, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #34 comment #34:] > [...] >> Follow-up Comment #33, bug #66583 (group groff): >> I disagree. The purpose of a "configure" script is to probe the system >> for properties upon which a source code projects depends to build (or >> which it ca

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #34, bug #66583 (group groff): Hi Branden, On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 05:47:41PM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Follow-up Comment #33, bug #66583 (group groff): > > Hi Alex, > > To lead with a summary: I partly disagree with your rants, From what I've read, you agree quite a

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #33, bug #66583 (group groff): Hi Alex, To lead with a summary: I partly disagree with your rants, but think you may have identified a bug--the groff developers need to be able to reproduce it, though. And I can't. At 2024-12-29T16:14:22+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > ./conf

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #32, bug #66583 (group groff): It seems I can't do anything without overlooking something, doesn't it? Do this to the first patch... diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am index e3b6488c3..22f9b31d3 100644 --- a/Makefile.am +++ b/Makefile.am @@ -654,7 +654,7 @@ examples-clean:

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #31, bug #66583 (group groff): To clear up a point about CCing and bug traffic: At 2024-12-29T20:06:30+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 01:49:29PM -0500, anonymous wrote: The problem Alex was experiencing, though, occured with a version which gr

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #30, bug #66583 (group groff): Upon Alex's & Branden's suggestions, I have added several new make targets which allow for more precise selection of what is to be built. I strongly felt this should be documented somewhere, so I have also added target `help` which documents all of

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #29, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #28 comment #28:] > It seems Alex's message didn't make it here; I quote it below verbatim. Ugh, not completely verbatim. s/=2E/./g; s/=3D/=/g Sorry. ___ Reply to this item at: <

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #28, bug #66583 (group groff): It seems Alex's message didn't make it here; I quote it below verbatim. Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:14:22 +0100 From: Alejandro Colomar Subject: Re: [bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo Hi Branden, On Sun, Dec 2

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #27, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #25 comment #25:] > [comment #24 comment #24:] >> [comment #23 comment #23:] >>> https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66609 does exactly that. The only issue it >>> has is that I'm not sure how should manually disabling building the manual >>> be

Re: [bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Hi Branden, On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 07:53:34AM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > The problem Alex was experiencing, though, occured with a version > > which groff accepted. > > Okay, well, he should be getting CCed on this so maybe he can put us in > the picture. [...] > The repository, and

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #26, bug #66583 (group groff): At 2024-12-28T16:04:10-0500, anonymous wrote: > Follow-up Comment #23, bug #66583 (group groff): > [comment #21 comment #21:] >>> Follow-up Comment #15, bug #66583 (group groff): >>> I doubt it will, because in his case, ./configure evaluated >>> ma

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #25, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #24 comment #24:] > [comment #23 comment #23:] >> https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66609 does exactly that. The only issue it >> has is that I'm not sure how should manually disabling building the manual >> be reflected in the summary of ava

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #24, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #23 comment #23:] > https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66609 does exactly that. The only issue it > has is that I'm not sure how should manually disabling building the manual > be reflected in the summary of available features that ./configure

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #23, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #21 comment #21:] > At 2024-12-27T19:23:56-0500, anonymous wrote: >> Follow-up Comment #15, bug #66583 (group groff): >> >> [comment #13 comment #13:] >>> Alex, does this fix address the problem you reported to the email >>> list in the "B

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #22, bug #66583 (group groff): The following remarks really apply to bug #66611, but as they're in response to a comment here, I'm posting them here. [comment #21 comment #21:] > the rest of the documents [...] also > serve as integration tests of functional code being shipped.

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #21, bug #66583 (group groff): At 2024-12-27T19:23:56-0500, anonymous wrote: > Follow-up Comment #15, bug #66583 (group groff): > > [comment #13 comment #13:] >> Alex, does this fix address the problem you reported to the email >> list in the "Build error in Devuan stable" thread

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #20, bug #66583 (group groff): https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?66611 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message sent via Savannah

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #19, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #15 comment #15:] > [comment #14 comment #14:] >> Regarding the patch itself, I don't like it. I'm not saying it's not the >> right patch (I don't know autotools, so can't judge that). I just mean that >> if it's the right thing, it tell

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #18, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #15 comment #15:] > I have an expanded version locally which adds flag to ./configure > to not build the Texinfo manual even when makeinfo is present & > up-to-date. I haven't posted it yet because I deemed it incomplete. > It deals only wi

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #17, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #15 comment #15:] > I'm not sure if I said it before, so I will say it now: thanks, Branden, for > improving the patch with your expertise, and for merging it. No, indeed, I did not interpret your comment #12... > Look, if groff allowed b

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #16, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #14 comment #14:] > Who should I talk to to ask for a public inbox like GCC, glibc, > and other GNU projects have done? This seems to have been answered on the email list in March: http://lists.gnu.org/r/groff/2024-03/msg00131.html (Groff

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #15, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #13 comment #13:] > Alex, does this fix address the problem you reported to the email list in the > "Build error in Devuan stable" thread (linked in comment #4 and comment #5 > here)? I doubt it will, because in his case, ./configure evalu

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #14, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #13 comment #13:] > Alex, does this fix address the problem you reported to the email list in the > "Build error in Devuan stable" thread (linked in comment #4 and comment #5 > here)? Hmmm, I'll test in a few days, when I turn on my laptop

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #13, bug #66583 (group groff): Alex, does this fix address the problem you reported to the email list in the "Build error in Devuan stable" thread (linked in comment #4 and comment #5 here)? [comment #5 comment #5:] > which is a separate thread in the archive (presumably due to

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #12, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #10 comment #10:] > At 2024-12-22T19:07:30-0500, anonymous wrote: >> Follow-up Comment #9, bug #66583 (group groff): >> [comment #8 comment #8:] >> I merely stated what is logical and works pretty much everywhere else. > > s/what is logica

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Update of bug #66583 (group groff): Status: In Progress => Fixed Open/Closed:Open => Closed Planned Release:None => 1.24.0 ___ Follow-up Comment #11

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #10, bug #66583 (group groff): At 2024-12-22T19:07:30-0500, anonymous wrote: > Follow-up Comment #9, bug #66583 (group groff): > [comment #8 comment #8:] >>> In any case, it seems you ran this with HAVE_MAKEINFO evaluating to >>> true. If that's the case, the conditional shouldn'

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #9, bug #66583 (group groff): [rearranging] [comment #8 comment #8:] >> In any case, it seems you ran this with HAVE_MAKEINFO evaluating to >> true. If that's the case, the conditional shouldn't change anything; >> the result should be equivalent to the conditional line not even

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #66583 (group groff): At 2024-12-22T08:09:41-0500, anonymous wrote: > Follow-up Comment #7, bug #66583 (group groff): > > [comment #6 comment #6:] >> There's some grief to work through. >> >> [...] >> >> My guess is that onf's if HAVE_MAKEINFO conditional eats too much. >

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #7, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #6 comment #6:] > There's some grief to work through. > > [...] > > My guess is that onf's if HAVE_MAKEINFO conditional eats too much. It took me a while to figure out what those warnings even mean. Looking at doc/doc.am, I see that there

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #66583 (group groff): There's some grief to work through. doc/doc.am:573: warning: dist-hook was already defined in condition TRUE, which includes condition HAVE_MAKEINFO ... Makefile.am:579: 'doc/doc.am' included from here contrib/chem/chem.am:101: ... 'dist-hook' pr

[bug #66583] [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

Update of bug #66583 (group groff): Status:None => In Progress Assigned to:None => gbranden Summary: [PATCH] Allow building groff without makeinfo => [PATCH] allow building groff without makeinfo

[bug #66583] [PATCH] Allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #66583 (group groff): Correction: you replied to his reply to the thread, which is a separate thread in the archive (presumably due to his client omitting the In-Reply-To: header). Here is the rest: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2024-12/msg0.html ___

[bug #66583] [PATCH] Allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #3 comment #3:] > > [comment #2 comment #2:] >> (He had a current makeinfo installed, but it failed to build the manual.) > > He didn't complain to me...I'll have to ring him up to see what the trouble > was. He did. You even replied to

[bug #66583] [PATCH] Allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #2 comment #2:] > I actually have a patch locally that adds a flag --disable-info-doc, created > in response to Alejandro Colomar being unable to build groff due to a failure > to build the Texinfo manual. I assume he was building from Git

[bug #66583] [PATCH] Allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #66583 (group groff): I actually have a patch locally that adds a flag --disable-info-doc, created in response to Alejandro Colomar being unable to build groff due to a failure to build the Texinfo manual. (He had a current makeinfo installed, but it failed to build the m

[bug #66583] [PATCH] Allow building groff without makeinfo

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #66583 (group groff): More background: Elsewhere in the email thread (specifically, http://lists.gnu.org/r/groff/2024-11/msg00152.html), Branden wrote, "If a volunteer submitted a clean patch to support disabling generation of Texinfo's output formats, I'd consider it.

[bug #66583] [PATCH] Allow building groff without makeinfo

URL: Summary: [PATCH] Allow building groff without makeinfo Group: GNU roff Submitter: barx Submitted: Wed 18 Dec 2024 10:16:29 PM CST Category: General Severi