Hello,
well ok, i think i have something that i could post (after some
more checking, i.e., tomorrow).
What would you say about an additional --with-examples?
We could solely skip PDF_PROGRAMS if neiter is desired, then.
And how fully blown do you actually want it: should a `make dist'
fail and co
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> well ok, i think i have something that i could post (after some
> more checking, i.e., tomorrow).
> What would you say about an additional --with-examples?
What would be the point? PREFIX/doc/examples occupies
over 3/4 of PREFIX/doc. What gain woul
Here's a draft for a mission statement, based on discussions over
the past few months. Comments, please.
GROFF MISSION STATEMENT (2014)
Groff holds an important place in the GNU universe. Its ancestry,
through nroff and troff
On 14/03/14 20:04, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> Can't imagine a situation where 'make dist' would want to exclude
> documentation. Assume nothing. :)
Since the intended purpose of "make dist" is to create distribution
tarballs, such as those published on FSF mirrors, it really wouldn't be
appropriate
Hi Peter,
i consider this draft largely adequate. Here are a few minor
comments. I'm explaining my comments in more detail than should
be included in the mission statement, such that they can be fully
understood. That also leaves the final wording to you, which may
help to maintain a (your) con
We have differing perspectives; if I worked exclusively on GNU projects,
perhaps I would have a different POV. However, I do find it disturbing
that a significant number of the problems raised on the autoconf ML are
ultimately identified as automake or libtool failings;
in addition, I get the impr
Ingo --
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> i consider this draft largely adequate. Here are a few minor
> comments. I'm explaining my comments in more detail than should
> be included in the mission statement, such that they can be fully
> understood.
Thanks. Have scan
Peter Schaffter :
> Manpages
>
> - improve the semantic usefulness of manpage markup; groff currently
> formats manpages for TTYs and PostScript from largely
> presentational markup, however increased use of browsers
> necessitates parsing source files for semantic markup in order to
> sim
> I've seen all the arguments before; I remain unconvinced. For me, the
> bottom line is that I can't write a really effective configure script,
> without assistance from autoconf; I *can* write a completely effective
> Makefile.in, without interference from automake.
Well, while I like to do a
>> - real number arithmetic to replace current integer arithmetic
>
> Do you really mean "replace", or rather something like "complement"
> or "provide in addition to"? If you do mean "replace", i fear
> compatibility issues. Besides, isn't integer arithmetics better
> suited to some tasks than
> Nothing you can ever do with autotools will ever be describable as
> 'streamlining'. It's a horrible, bloated, crufty mess that leads to
> horrible, bloated, crufty builds.
No comment :-)
> If I were running the project I would toss out autotools in a
> heartbeat and replace it with somethin
11 matches
Mail list logo
