[I don't know why -current is CC'd this is clearly about -stable]
Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> Attached is the patch for RELENG_4. It works but I don't like
> how it pollutes the Makefile.inc1. Anyone with a better idea?
Allow me to sidetrack for a moment:
I just ugraded a machine from 4.1 to 4
Hi!
Attached is the patch for RELENG_4. It works but I don't like
how it pollutes the Makefile.inc1. Anyone with a better idea?
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 09:43:55AM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >
> > > Let me rephrase the question: Did you modify the manpages to get
"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote:
>
> > There's no other place. Only bootstrap tools, cross tools and build
> > tools are build in such a way that they can run on the build machine.
> > You can't build it later than cross-tools. It's not a cross tool itself
> > and definitely not a build tool. It must be
Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
>
> > Why does groff need to be a bootstrap-tool? Its not like we need to
> > build manpages that early in the build.
>
> There's no other place. Only bootstrap tools, cross tools and build
> tools are build in such a way that they can run on the build machine.
> You can
David O'Brien wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 10:23:44AM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > OK, I will augment the USRDIRS then, add the groff to bootstrap-tools,
> > and leave the better (if one exists) implementation to someone else.
>
> Why does groff need to be a bootstrap-tool? Its not li
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 10:23:44AM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> OK, I will augment the USRDIRS then, add the groff to bootstrap-tools,
> and leave the better (if one exists) implementation to someone else.
Why does groff need to be a bootstrap-tool? Its not like we need to
build manpages that
Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> > Let me rephrase the question: Did you modify the manpages to get it to
> > work with the new groff(1) or is the new groff(1) backward compatible
> > with the old groff(1)?
> >
> The new groff(1) is not always backwards compatible.
Ok, thanks. That's all I wanted to he
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 09:12:17AM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >
> > It appers that running mtree(1) with -U under non-root account works OK,
> > i.e. it creates all missing directories, and exits with status of zero.
>
> I believe it also emits warnings, right?
>
>
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 09:07:53AM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 12:29:54PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > > Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 06:22:09PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > > > > Ruslan Ermilo
Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> It appers that running mtree(1) with -U under non-root account works OK,
> i.e. it creates all missing directories, and exits with status of zero.
I believe it also emits warnings, right?
> What if we create the mtree(1)-compatible BSD.world.dist?
> The below was gener
Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 12:29:54PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 06:22:09PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > > > Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The attached patches (p4 and p5) try to solve this
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 10:11:28PM -0800, Thomas D. Dean wrote:
> I have no environment settings that relate to groff and only MANPATH
> that relates to man.
>
> There are no local modifications. etc/make.conf only has
> CFLAGS= -O -pipe
> HAVE_MOTIF= yes
> MOTIF_STATIC= yes
> USA_RESIDENT=
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 12:43:24PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 06:17:52PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > > Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The attached patches (p4 and p5) try to solve this bootstrapping
> > > > problem with gro
On 10 Dec 2000, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > According to the manpage, if you remove -U it doesn't create new
> > directories or symlinks. At least that's how I interpret it.
>
> You interpret it wrong. -U just tells mtree to fix permissions. The
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 12:29:54PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 06:22:09PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > > Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The attached patches (p4 and p5) try to solve this bootstrapping
> > > > problem with gro
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>
> Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > According to the manpage, if you remove -U it doesn't create new
> > directories or symlinks. At least that's how I interpret it.
>
> You interpret it wrong. -U just tells mtree to fix permissions. The
> canonical wa
Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> According to the manpage, if you remove -U it doesn't create new
> directories or symlinks. At least that's how I interpret it.
You interpret it wrong. -U just tells mtree to fix permissions. The
canonical way to use the mtree files in /etc/mtree is
David O'Brien wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 07:59:46PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > > The only thing you don't like about mtree is it changing ownership +
> > > modes, right?
> >
> > Not only that. Using mtree(1) creates busloads of unnecessary
> > directories.
>
> But they're harmles
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 07:59:46PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > The only thing you don't like about mtree is it changing ownership +
> > modes, right?
>
> Not only that. Using mtree(1) creates busloads of unnecessary
> directories.
But they're harmless. While I agree it is clutter, having
"Thomas D. Dean" wrote:
>
> # cd /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin
> # make clean
> # cd /usr/src
> # make -DNOCLEAN world
>
> fixed the problem. Before, I used 'make -j36 -DNOCLEAN world'. Could
> it be a problem with the Makefile in man?
-DNOCLEAN is not guaranteed to work. Especially when makefiles cha
I have no environment settings that relate to groff and only MANPATH
that relates to man.
There are no local modifications. etc/make.conf only has
CFLAGS= -O -pipe
HAVE_MOTIF= yes
MOTIF_STATIC= yes
USA_RESIDENT= YES
WRKDIRPREFIX= /usr/obj/ports
NO_MODULES= NO
I have always
"Thomas D. Dean" wrote:
>
> >> /usr/bin/groff -S -Wall -mtty-char -man -Tascii | ...
> >
> > should be -mandoc
>
> This was generated by 'man', not me.
I understand that.
> There appears to be a problem in m
David O'Brien wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 12:43:24PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > On the other hand, I also don't want to use mtree.
>
> The only thing you don't like about mtree is it changing ownership +
> modes, right?
Not only that. Using mtree(1) creates busloads of unnecessar
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 12:43:24PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On the other hand, I also don't want to use mtree.
The only thing you don't like about mtree is it changing ownership +
modes, right? If so, what about a new flag to mtree to make it only
create directories and nothing else?
-
>> /usr/bin/groff -S -Wall -mtty-char -man -Tascii | ...
>
> should be -mandoc
This was generated by 'man', not me. There appears to be a problem in
man.
tomdean
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTE
"Thomas D. Dean" wrote:
>
> trying command: (cd /usr/share/man ; /usr/bin/zcat
> /usr/share/man/man8/zzz.8.gz | /usr/bin/tbl |
> /usr/bin/groff -S -Wall -mtty-char -man -Tascii | ...
should be -mandoc
> tr
# ls /usr/share/man/man*/zzz*
/usr/share/man/man8/zzz.8.gz
# ls /usr/share/man/cat*/zzz*
ls: No match.
Ok, so, man zzz should reformat the man page. I have attached the
output of 'man -d zzz' and 'man zzz'
After 'man zzz', I see
# ls /usr/share/man/cat*/zzz*
/usr/share/man/cat8/zzz.8.gz
So, t
"Thomas D. Dean" wrote:
>
> Is this the problem I see with mal-formatted man pages?
Possibly. I don't know if we changed files to get our sources working
with the new groff(1). If we did, we definitely have a bootstrapping
problem, because that would mean that we can't reliably create manpages
w
Is this the problem I see with mal-formatted man pages?
The pages appear as 1 block with no headers, tities, etc.
tomdean
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 06:17:52PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > >
> > > The attached patches (p4 and p5) try to solve this bootstrapping
> > > problem with groff(1). I have lightly tested this on my -stable
> > > box, and would appreciate
Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 06:22:09PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > >
> > > The attached patches (p4 and p5) try to solve this bootstrapping
> > > problem with groff(1).
> >
> > Sorry, I missed this statement before. What exactly are the
> > b
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 06:22:09PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >
> > The attached patches (p4 and p5) try to solve this bootstrapping
> > problem with groff(1).
>
> Sorry, I missed this statement before. What exactly are the
> bootstrapping problems you're seeing?
>
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 06:17:52PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >
> > The attached patches (p4 and p5) try to solve this bootstrapping
> > problem with groff(1). I have lightly tested this on my -stable
> > box, and would appreciate a feedback on them.
>
> Do not rem
Matt Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> c++ -O -pipe -DHAVE_UNISTD_H=1 -DHAVE_DIRENT_H=1 -DHAVE_LIMITS_H=1
>-DHAVE_STDLIB_H=1 -DHAVE_STRING_H=1 -DHAVE_STRINGS_H=1 -DHAVE_MATH_H=1
>-DRET_TYPE_SRAND_IS_VOID=1 -DHAVE_SYS_NERR=1 -DHAVE_SYS_ERRLIST=1
>-DHAVE_CC_LIMITS_H=1 -DRETSIGTYPE=void -DHAVE
Matt Dillon wrote:
>
> /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/groff# make
>
> ===> libgroff
> ===> libdriver
> ===> libbib
> ===> addftinfo
> ===> afmtodit
> ===> doc
> ===> eqn
> c++ -O -pipe -DHAVE_UNISTD_H=1 -DHAVE_DIRENT_H=1 -DHAVE_LIMITS_H=1
>-DHAVE_STDLIB_H=1 -DHAVE_STRING_H=1 -DHAVE_STRINGS_H=1 -DHAVE_MA
:Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
:>
:> The attached patches (p4 and p5) try to solve this bootstrapping
:> problem with groff(1).
:
:Sorry, I missed this statement before. What exactly are the
:bootstrapping problems you're seeing?
:
:--
:Marcel Moolenaar
: mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:
Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> The attached patches (p4 and p5) try to solve this bootstrapping
> problem with groff(1).
Sorry, I missed this statement before. What exactly are the
bootstrapping problems you're seeing?
--
Marcel Moolenaar
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel: (408)
Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> The attached patches (p4 and p5) try to solve this bootstrapping
> problem with groff(1). I have lightly tested this on my -stable
> box, and would appreciate a feedback on them.
Do not remove the USRDIRS and INCDIRS and replace it with mtree (ie make
hierarchy). There
Hi!
I have recently upgraded groff(1) to the latest released version.
Groff(1) provides two kind of data files: device files (ones that
installed into /usr/share/groff_font), and macro package files
(ones that installed into /usr/share/tmac). New groff(1) versions
are likely to supply new files
39 matches
Mail list logo
