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 29, 2024 at 07
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:
<
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
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
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
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.
__
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
