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