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
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
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
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
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:
Update of bug #66609 (group groff):
Status:None => Rejected
Assigned to:None => barx
Open/Closed:Open => Closed
___
Follow-up Comment #1
Update of bug #66611 (group groff):
Summary: [PATCH] Allow manually disabling building of
documentation => Allow manually disabling building of documentation
___
Follow-up Comment #3:
Submitter has withdrawn this patch in
